Mon
Mar 26 2007
03:00 pm

I need some legal advice. I also need some guidance.

Per Randy Neal's request to me to not link Copyrighted material from YouTube on KnoxViews I requested via email permission from Community Television of Knoxville (CTV) to continue to provide Knox County Commission meetings on YouTube as I have done for several months now.

I received a reply email from David Vogel, the General Manager of CTV. It read, “Please remove all segments of the Knox County Commission Meetings that you have uploaded to YouTube, until proper copyright clearance has been obtained.”

Read more after the jump ...

I replied back that I did not recognize the alleged Copyright per the fair use doctrine of Copyright law. I ask what I had to do to receive permission from CTV to continue to post the County Commission meetings on YouTube. I also requested that CTV provide the service I have been providing for several months. I explained I did not want to provide this service as it was very time consuming and I hoped that CTV would decide to take this off my hands.

Today I received from Mr. Vogel an email stating, “As a non-profit corporation, CTV has the same rights under the copyright laws as any other company. CTV owns the copyright to any program produced by its employees. As the copyright owner, CTV maintains its right to exercise all privileges of copyright, which includes the right to exclude others from making and publishing copies of its programs and the right to exclude others from making derivative works using its programs. If someone edits or changes a CTV program, this constitutes a "derivative work."

As a matter of policy or choice, CTV will allow others to publish copies of our programs under certain conditions. In order to make and publish unedited and completely unchanged copies of our programs, a Permission Request must first be submitted in writing, along with a copy of your personal identification (eg. driver's license or passport). As a general rule, we do NOT grant permission to publish edited or changed versions of our programs (derivative works).”

I replied to Mr. Vogel that the Knox County Schools already has an Internet Archive of school board meetings and asked him if there was a way for CTV to do the same with Knox County Commission meetings. Mr. Vogel responded and said there were exploring this with the same firm that does the Knox County School Board meetings. He explained there was no time table as yet.

That is the background so let me explain my problem. CTV does not “produce” Knox County Commission meetings. They “film” the meetings. Today’s meeting may be historic on both the Storm Water issue and the Metro Government issue.

What should I do? I understand Mr. Vogel’s position and I don’t know the fine details of Copyright Law or what the right thing to do is. I feel that the idea of Copyrighting a public meetings is ludicrous. I see this as a violation of my First Amendment rights. But I may incur legal action if I continue. How can anyone Copyright a Knox County Commission meeting?

If you were in my shoes, what would you do?

Bbeanster's picture

Public Access TV?????

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.

R. Neal's picture

Betty, there may be some

Betty, there may be some funding from the cable and broadcast companies who carry it. I believe it is mandated by the FCC as a condition of their license, but I'm not sure. It's all a gray area to me. On the other hand, if one considers such funding a form of a tax on cable/broadcast companies as a condition of doing business locally, I suppose you could argue that is taxpayer funded, too.

Number9's picture

Storm Water ordinance is being discussed now...

The most important issue of this year is being discussed right now.

Will you be able to see it?

Bbeanster's picture

I don't think there's

I don't think there's funding, per se, from the cable carrier, but the cable companies are legally obliged to carry these public meetings as part of their franchise agreement with the county/city.

I cannot imagine what harm putting these videos on YouTube does, since the purpose of the broadcast obligation is public information, not commercial gain.

Rachel's picture

I agree with Bean, there

I agree with Bean, there should be no problem with putting these meetings on YouTube.

But if I were #9, I'd cease and desist as CTV requested, at least until I had consulted a lawyer. If it wasn't worth enough to me to consult a lawyer, I'd cease and desist, period.

BTW, did they write you back as #9? Or did you break down and give them your real name?

R. Neal's picture

I don’t know the fine

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...

rocketsquirrel's picture

get a camera

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.

Amish's picture

Two cautionary notes: 1) If

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*

R. Neal's picture

P.S. That stuff about

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.

mpower1952's picture

Just like to say

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.

R. Neal's picture

P.P.S. I also have to agree

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.

Number9's picture

The First Amendment is valid...

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.

Who "owns" a public meeting? The public, or CTV?

R. Neal's picture

Again, CTV can rightfully

Again, CTV can rightfully claim they own the camera and equipment and employee's time and resources used to broadcast it and the tape it is recorded on and the copyright to what is on the tape and everything they produce in that manner. So could you, if you went down there with a camera and recorded it. Again, see the AP example. How is the AP able to copyright a photo of the President getting on Air Force One?

Again, the question is, what is CVT's source of funding? If it is indeed 100% taxpayer funded, you might have an argument that anything they produce is public domain* (and I'm not even sure if this applies outside the Federal government). That is the tack you should pursue, not some imagined violation of your First Amendment rights which do not exist in this context.

*Except maybe the weirdo shows late at night, because those people pay a fee, I think. They may give CVT a limited copyright, which CVT would probably need to broadcast their shows, but I wouldn't think they would give up their copyright. Maybe Mark Harmon knows, being a communications scholar, and a producer of a (not weirdo) show on CVT.

R. Neal's picture

Another example. By your

Another example. By your line of reasoning, the KNS, or Betty Bean, or even KnoxViews could not claim copyright on original reporting of a county commission meeting (such as occurred on 1/31) beause it was a public meeting. By your logic, you would be free to copy and republish any of those reports. I don't think so.

Number9's picture

Apples and oranges...

By your line of reasoning, the KNS, or Betty Bean, or even KnoxViews could not claim copyright on original reporting of a county commission meeting (such as occurred on 1/31) because it was a public meeting. By your logic, you would be free to copy and republish any of those reports. I don't think so.

Can you tell me what CTV does other than film the Knox County Commission meeting? What exactly does CTV provide that is original content?

Why is my argument not valid under the fair use doctrine of Copyright Law?

R. Neal's picture

Amish already covered

Amish already covered that.

Is it for educational purposes? Where's your teacher's certificiate or school accreditation?

Is it for reporting, crtiticism, editorial comment? Where is your editorial comment or that other stuff?

Is it the whole thing, or excerpts?

Number9's picture

Why must I even provide this service?

Is it for educational purposes? Where's your teacher's certificate or school accreditation?

Is it for reporting, criticism, editorial comment? Where is your editorial comment or that other stuff?

Is it the whole thing, or excerpts?

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

Due to the limitation of YouTube I must present the meetings in 10 minute segments. The entire meeting is not provided. But there is complete continuity for each item provided.

There is no comment or editorial on YouTube. I use KnoxViews and Say Uncle for comment and/or editorial. This entire issue arose when I posted links on KnoxViews to County Commission meetings and you asked I had permission from CTV.

As of today over 3000 people have watched Knox County meetings on YouTube.

I have received many emails thanking me for this service.

Isn't it sad that the only way many Knox County citizens can see their government meetings is from a pseudonymous Internet commentator?

What kind of leadership is that?

rocketsquirrel's picture

CTV provides support to community broadcasters

CTV provides training and video equipment to folks wanting to develop their own community TV broadcast content, plus airtime on CTV. I believe it costs like $25 to go get trained.

CTV does a heck of a lot more than film the County Commission meetings. From the Producer Handbook PDF file on their site.

USING THE ACCESS CENTER
2.1 Eligibility. Community Television of Knoxville is open to residents, non-profit
organizations, and government agencies located in the City of Knoxville or Knox County.
All producers are required to have on file a photocopy of their current Tennessee Drivers
License. Notwithstanding the requirement that all producers be residents of Knox County,
CTV will allow out-of-county residents who subscribe to a Knox County based cable
television provider to be producers. The total number of out-of-county producers shall not
exceed five percent (5%) of total producer base. CTV may require documentation that
the out-of-county producer receives service from a Knox County based cable television
provider.
An annual access fee is required of the Executive Producer as well as all crewmembers
that operate any CTV equipment. Non-profit organizations will not be required to pay
access fees for more than 10 people.
All Executive Producers (persons accepting responsibility for the content of a program)
must be at least 18 years of age. However, members of the production crew can be of
any age as long as they can operate the equipment effectively. Anyone checking out
equipment (such as a portable camera) must be at least 18 years old. If a person under
the age of 18 has had the workshop and wants to check out equipment, an adult must
sign the contract for use of CTV portable equipment accepting financial responsibility for
the equipment.
2.2 Relationship Between CTV and Producers. CTV is a private non-profit
corporation. Producers are not agents or employees of CTV. They are independent
producers and create programming for themselves or the organization they represent. At
no time may any individual or organization identify himself or herself as an employee or
agent of CTV unless hired by CTV. CTV exercises no control, beyond these policies, over
production activities by producers except when members have been recruited by CTV to
crew productions that are specifically coordinated by CTV. Producers must not identify
their production efforts as being "for CTV." Rather, producers should indicate that their
programs "will be seen on CTV."

.

Bbeanster's picture

There are all kinds of

There are all kinds of things on CTV. That's not in question here. What's in question here are public meeting made available to the public through a public access television station paid for by Knox County taxpayers, and through contributions that local government *forces* the cable companies to make to make.

Why?

To inform the public. They have some leverage over the cable companies that are seeking lucrative franchise rights, and they force them to carry these public access channels (except for Knology, for some reason).

bizgrrl's picture

Lawyer up! No one here can

Lawyer up!

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

djuggler's picture

Cite C-Span

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.

Number9's picture

Hat tip to djuggler...

Very concise and pertinent information.

Why wouldn't CTV adopt these same standards? It makes me wonder if perhaps Bbeanster hit the nail on the head, is it political?

C-SPAN is introducing a liberalized copyright policy for current, future, and past coverage of any official events sponsored by Congress and any federal agency-- about half of all programming offered on the C-SPAN television networks--which will allow non-commercial copying, sharing, and posting of C-SPAN video on the Internet, with attribution.

· In addition, C-SPAN also announced plans to significantly build out its capitolhearings.org website as a one-stop resource for Congressionally-produced webcasts of House and Senate committee and subcommittee hearings.

R. Neal's picture

copyright policyi.e. C-SPAN

copyright policy

i.e. C-SPAN owns the copyright, and they are granting you, the viewer, a limited copyright of your own to use their copyrighted material with certain conditions and restrictions. This is what copyright holders do. This means C-SPAN is not in the public domain, or this wouldn't be necessary.

I agree that this would be an admirable policy for CTV to adopt. The law does not, however, appear to require C-SPAN or CTV to do so.

I also agree that there is a possibility of political influence regarding how CTV manages their copyrights.

I'm just not seeing a legal basis for your arguments. But I am not a lawyer. Maybe you should get one.

Bbeanster's picture

Hey, Djuggler-- Thanks for

Hey, Djuggler--
Thanks for that C-SPAN link.
That is the kind of sensible policy that should be the gold standard for public TV.
This stuff just doesn't have to be so confrontational and personal.

R. Neal's picture

P.P.S. One last thing and

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.

R. Neal's picture

OK, one more thing and I'm

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.

bizgrrl's picture

I provide the service for

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.

Amish's picture

I have DirecTV, or however

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.

rocketsquirrel's picture

overreaching

the digit: "Isn't it sad that the only way* many Knox County citizens can see their government meetings is from a pseudonymous Internet commentator?"

If CTV wants to start youtubing their content, they can set a policy for doing so. Somehow putting it in the hands of a self-described "pseudonymous Internet commentator" doesn't seem to be in CTV's, and thereby the public's, best interests. I don't blame them a bit. Your rhetoric is over the top--invoking everything from the First Amendment to fair use doctrine. It's not your tape. they produced it, they don't have to give it to a pseudonymous Internet commentator to post on video service that has been sued for $1 BILLION for coypright infringement.

Perhaps CTV is looking at other streaming options. Perhaps they don't trust a pseudonymous Internet commentator with the public interest. Perhaps they've read some of your disjointed posts regarding conspiracies in Knox County government. Just because someone is offering to do it for them for free under a blanket of pseudonymity doesn't mean it's a smart decision.

Just sayin'...

*emphasis mine.

Bbeanster's picture

Or maybe someone in county

Or maybe someone in county government is telling them what to do. It wouldn't be the first time.

Number9's picture

Thanks, I forgot.

I have DirecTV, or however they spell it. I don't think they carry CTV, but I could be mistaken--

I have received emails from dialup AOL users and Direct TV users thanking me for the YouTube clips of the Knox County Commission Meetings.

There is more to this than just my/our situation. Anyone should be able to link a clip from a government meeting on a website. That is what the fair use Copyright doctrine is all about.

For example, look at this clip from Volunteer Voters.

Do we want the only bloggers that will have the ability to link a clip from a public meeting to be television news stations like WKRN of Nashville?

Public meetings are "our" meetings. We "own" them. This is different from a still photograph of a person in a public meeting. This is the intent of the fair use doctrine.

R. Neal's picture

This is the intent of the

This is the intent of the fair use doctrine.

You are just making shit up now.

Let me ask you another way. Does CTV have cameras, broadcast equipment, personnel, other resources? Were they free or did CTV make an investment in all that stuff? Did they make the effort to go to the meeting and broadcast it, or did it just magically appear on your Tivo?

Get a lawyer and get it sorted out. Sue them, win, and make them pay your legal fees.

Number9's picture

No, I did not make up the fair use doctrine...

You are just making shit up now.

Let me ask you another way. Does CTV have cameras, broadcast equipment, personnel, other resources? Were they free or did CTV make an investment in all that stuff? Did they make the effort to go to the meeting and broadcast it, or did it just magically appear on your Tivo?

Then please tell me what the fair use doctrine means.

Who pays for CTV?

Who pays the salaries of CTV?

Who bought the cameras, broadcast equipment, personnel, and stuff?

R. Neal's picture

Anyone should be able to

Anyone should be able to link a clip from a government meeting on a website. That is what the fair use Copyright doctrine is all about.

This is different from a still photograph of a person in a public meeting. This is the intent of the fair use doctrine.

These two statements reveal your complete ignorance of intellectual property rights and copyright law.

Fair use doesn't have anything to do with governments or websites. The form of a copyrighted work (still photograph, video, audio recording, etc.) has nothing to do with the owner's rights in their intellectual property.

Your continued nagging at me for asking you more than once not to post copyrighted material as stated in the site rules is almost as annoying as your disregard for the intellectual property rights of others.

Which has nothing to do with whether CTV should, as a matter of policy, make government meetings more accessible.

You asked for advice. You got some reasoned responses. You continue to spin like a whirling dervish because you didn't get the answer you wanted.

So either lawyer up or STFU. Or just keep posting copyrighted material on YouTube and force the issue. Who knows, you may go down in legal history.

Number9's picture

Actually in this case it does matter...

Fair use doesn't have anything to do with governments or websites. The form of a copyrighted work (still photograph, video, audio recording, etc.) has nothing to do with the owner's rights in their intellectual property.

Then please tell me what the fair use doctrine means as it relates to CTV.

Who pays for CTV?

Who pays the salaries of CTV?

Who bought the cameras, broadcast equipment, personnel, and stuff?

Who "owns" the broadcast? The taxpayers do. That would be me.

What makes this unique is that CTV is paid for by taxpayers just as the Commission meetings are paid for by taxpayers. There is no question of "ownership". Why do I have to ask permission for something that is mine? Ravenwood at Say Uncle writes about how CSPAN doesn't Copyright government meetings but does Copyright discussions about those meetings.

Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

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

2.) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4.) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

BTW, get a lawyer and STFU is not really advice. At least not constructive advice.

Number9's picture

Apples and oranges again...

If I put a show on CTV and you DVR it and put it on Youtube, you violated my copyright if you are not doing so for critical, satirical, or education reasons.

What does that have to do with Knox County Commission meetings? Of course CTV shows like the Mark Harmon show or the Steve Hall show are Copyrighted.

The subject was public meetings.

The question is whether CTV is overstepping their rights and infringing on the public's right to use content from the public's own meetings. CTV does not produce the meetings, they film them, and they do not own the meetings or the content. It isn't Major League Baseball.

Bbeanster's picture

A public meeting that a

A public meeting that a cable company is forced to carry as a condition of its franchise agreement is not analogous to a for-profit baseball game.
I swear, y'all hate #9 so bad that you act just like him sometimes, picking nits and arguing to hear your heads rattle.
Whatever CTV claims as its right, restricting access to the public information they telecast (not produce, write nor conceive -- just telecast) is counter to the very reason they exist. If it weren't for the public's legally-mandated right to know, there'd be no CTV. They are here for no other reason.
And if you don't think that local government leans on CTV re content, you don't know what you're talking about. There was a huge controversy here awhile back when County Commission took exception to one show, and threatened CTV funding over it.
County Commission meetings are scheduled at the most inconvenient times for citizens who work for a living, and therefore, most people don't get a chance to see what's going on there. #9 has done a service by posting this stuff to YouTube, where it is available to folks who don't have cable or the capacity to tape or TIVO stuff.

R. Neal's picture

Betty, I've said that #9 is

Betty, I've said that #9 is correct in that CVT should provide access to the broadcasts as a matter of policy. I've also agreed that there is probably some politics involved.

What I will keep saying, though, over and over and over and over just like #9, is that his complaint has no basis in copyright law (which for some reason #9 says is on its way out because of YouTube).

But I'm not a lawyer, and I could be wrong. Although I have spent the last ten years protecting our own copyrighted material that pays the bills from theft (which unfortunately still occurs despite our best efforts). I'm always surprised when a journalist, who's work and livelyhood are similarly protected by copyright laws, comes down on the other side of this issue.

But mainly I'm saying that a legal challenge is not the best way to get the desired outcome in this case, because I believe it is without any legal merit and it will fail. I'm saying a better approach is to pressure County Commission, the Cable Committee, Mayor Ragsdale, and CVT to do the right thing with regards to open government in the public's interest.

All of the arguments about public meetings, public funding of CTV (which is actually cable company funding, if I'm not mistaken, but I suppose you could consider it a tax) etc. are great arguments for a change in their policy, but they are not valid legal arguments against lawful enforcement of copyrights, in my view.

Rachel's picture

Hey Bean, reread some of our

Hey Bean, reread some of our responses. I completely agree that Nine should be able to post County Commission mtgs on YouTube.

But he asked for advice about whether he should continue to do so in light of CTV telling him no. I don't think he should, without consulting a lawyer first, unless he's willing to risk finding himself in a legal mess.

If he is, then fine and dandy.

My problem with Nine in this thread is that he asked for advice and then proceeded to argue about the advice he got. If he doesn't like it, he can reject it. Arguing with people about it is just rude.

rocketsquirrel's picture

Photoshopped or Videoshopped?

he's not willing to get a camera and shoot it, and thinks that because a nonprofit receives public funding, everything they do is owned by the taxpayers. Following that logic, if a nonprofit historic museum takes city or county funds to help it operate, then #9 should be able to walk in and take the paintings off the wall because he "owns" them.

I don't disagree that the videos of the meetings should be on the 'net. I just wouldn't necessarily put them in the hands of the first schmo to offer to upload them. It looks too like CTV is working on its own Flash video capability, so it's not like they're not thinking about this.

I do disagree that a pseudonymous blogger be allowed to post these on youtube. I would prefer to know that they were from an authoritative source, such as CTV's web site. If anyone were allowed to rip them and upload, who is to say that audio would not be altered. Think it won't happen? It does. Will #9 or anyone else follow the Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics? This once applied only to photographs, (since 1991) but is now being applied to video.

Think about the power of "altering content in a way that deceives the public..."

Here's an example: Using off the shelf video editing tools, taking news footage and adding other footage of a public figure who wasn't there...or taking innocent footage and superimposing a person in a bar drinking with a faked timecode to show them drinking at 1 pm during work hours...or taking an audio recording of a public figure from another time or place and adding it to the recording of a County Commission meeting.

Think about it.

Number9's picture

What could it be?

Why do I think there is some other agenda afoot here?

Someone doesn't want the public to see the meetings. I asked for permission and was told I had to provide ID to post a public meeting. That is crazy. Mr. Vogel seems to forget who pays the bills.

If that isn't bad enough then Mr. Vogel's states that even if permission is given, the entire meeting must be presented. No excerpts may be posted.

In the storm water meeting last night James McMillan made a presentation that people need to see. As a blogger I want to be able to post that on YouTube. According to Mr. Vogel I would have to post the entire meeting. Why would he do that?

I see this as an infringement of both speech and expression. Who saw the storm water meeting last night? Maybe 1,000 people out of 400,000 people in Knox County? Did WATE or WBIR show any of the meeting? There is one small article in the News Sentinel.

How many people know today that the proposed storm water regulations will place the burden of complying with the new regulations on the property owner?

Even when CTV provides Internet Archives of the meetings the idea that a person cannot post an excerpt of a meeting for discussion is crazy.

There is an agenda, to keep people from seeing these meetings.

Number9's picture

Deliberately obtuse?

You could link to the archive. That's fair use. See the difference?

I see what you are trying to do, metulj. I don't agree with your conclusion. If anyone other than me was doing this would you feel differently?

Yes, you can link to the archive and tell people to look at the portion between minutes 23 to 34. So they have to wait through 23 minutes of what they do not care to see to see the part they want to see.

What is the purpose of that? Would it be to discourage people from watching their government? This is a petite form of censorship. Not really censorship, more like discouragement. Is that what we need in Knox County. More barriers to discourse about public meetings?

It is all about the barriers isn't it?

Can we be honest for a moment? Someone doesn't want people to see these meetings. That much is clear.

That'd be Knology behind the conspiracy, not CTV.

The idea that Knology is "behind the conspiracy" is ludicrous. If you were knowledgeable on this subject you would know it is a technical issue that is being worked on and will soon be completed.

CTV will at some time provide Internet Archives. The purpose of this thread is to challenge Mr. Vogel's assertion that excerpts of public meetings paid for by taxpayers, broadcast with taxpayer money, for the benefit of taxpayers cannot by used in YouTube clips with blog commentary. Mr. Vogel was clear that even if permission to post public meetings on YouTube was granted that excerpts would not be allowed.

Mr. Vogel has a proprietary viewpoint on public meetings. He is incorrect on fair use as are others in this thread.

R. Neal's picture

excerpts of public

excerpts of public meetings

Once again, you are moving the goalposts of your ever shape-shifting argument.

Before, you were claiming Fair Use allows you to re-broadcast entire public meetings if you want. Now you are talking about excerpts.

Excerpts would be perfectly legit under Fair Use, although there is a gray area about how much constitutes an excerpt v. substantial copying, and my understanding is that it is decided on a case by case basis by the courts if/when there is a claim of infringement.

But it would seem (and I am not a lawyer so this is not legal advice) that a ten-second sound bite of some ridiculous Lumpy motion out of a two hour meeting would pass muster as Fair Use.

Your re-broadcast of 70 minutes of the meeting on the McElroy lawsuit, for example, would probably not pass muster as Fair Use.

P.S. Whatever happened about the WBIR Inside Tennessee broadcasts? You were going to get with Katie, who produces it, to get permission to post it on YouTube and here. Never heard back from you on that.

Number9's picture

Why temp fate?

Whatever happened about the WBIR Inside Tennessee broadcasts? You were going to get with Katie, who produces it, to get permission to post it on YouTube and here. Never heard back from you on that.

I did email Katie. She said she could not make the decision. I wanted to make sure contact had been established with WBIR. "Inside Tennessee" will soon provide Internet archives of their program. Did my actions prompt that decision? Maybe. Maybe not.

So why do something that is time consuming and potentially actionable? Because no one else will. Because this town desperately needs more sourcing for news and new avenues of debate and discussion. Allowing the local media monopolists to control the reporting of news portends a bleak future for Knox County.

The News Sentinel has serious issues with reporting the news. They are a virtual Public Relations firm for both Mayors. The under reporting of major news items is legend in Knox county. A very important meeting on storm water last night was briefly reported in the News Sentinel and ignored by local TV news. This is a far bigger story than the Metro Government non-story yet it was greatly under-reported.

The postings of Knox County Commission meetings is a public service. That is why there is no commentary. I just want people to be able to see their government. Yet not everyone likes this. I find that puzzling.

I am surprised that the people who most object to what I am doing are people with little love for local media. Some of the most ”progressive” people are the ones crying foul.

What I have achieved is to create some competition in letting the Knox County Commission meetings be seen. An awareness of the problem has been created. It is a beginning. I am aware of the risks involved.

There will be video post from yesterdays meeting. I think you knew that. I am working on them now. Per my agreement with Randy I will not post links to them. You have to know where to look. Look late this evening.

I wanted to know what people thought and felt. I had secured legal advice long ago. I wanted to see who would defend CTV and who would question them. It has been most illuminating. I appreciate the response and your comments. Will this be a test case? Time will tell. I hope cooler heads prevail and this can be worked out. The people deserve the right to see their government working.

Rachel's picture

I wanted to know what people

I wanted to know what people thought and felt. I had secured legal advice long ago. I wanted to see who would defend CTV and who would question them. It has been most illuminating.

So you were just scamming us when you asked for advice? Not a very nice way to treat your "community."

R. Neal's picture

I wanted to see who would

I wanted to see who would defend CTV and who would question them. It has been most illuminating.

So you admit your were trolling, quite effectively I might add, or are you changing your story again now that (surprise!) not everyone agrees with your premise?

And again as usual, you are twisting people's words. People are defending copyrights (at least I am), not CTV's policy, which I believe every single person who has responded here agrees with you that it sucks.

At any rate, glad we've been able to help "illuminate" and that you've been able to add some more names to your list of those who would crush dissent and who are complicit in the conspiracy for when The Day of Reckoning comes.

Rachel's picture

those who would crush

those who would crush dissent and who are complicit in the conspiracy for when The Day of Reckoning comes.

Wonder if that would fit on a tee shirt.....

Number9's picture

What did not come up...

not CTV's policy, which I believe every single person who has responded here agrees with you that it sucks.

So the CTV policy sucks. Many if not most agreed with that but defended the method used for the policy, Copyright protection.

You have to be kidding. What kind of double speak is that? The question here is simple, is Mr. Vogel's action ethical considering the mission statement and funding of CTV?

Many Angels did dance on a pin and there was much consideration of Copyright law and intent. But at the end most agreed CTV's policy was not in the public good. I.E. it sucks.

But then many bent over and contorted themselves to justify the reason for CTV's policy.

So like any person that could see the connection between the policy and the device to justify the policy I called you on it and you would think I took the Lord's name in vain.

If the policy sucks what does that tell you? Mr. Vogel is using Copyright to suppress the public viewing of public meetings paid for by the public.

That is a bad thing isn't it? So where is the outrage about the policy that most agree "sucks"?

R. Neal's picture

???

defended the method used for the policy

I don't get it. County Commission votes to go metrosexual, and all anybody wants to talk about is bar-b-cue sauce. Then, you come along and say it is fair to use the bar-b-cue sauce at a commission meeting on ethics, but not ethical to meet a commissioner in the storm sewer.

Can't you see the falacy of your arguments? There's a longstanding tradition of storm sewer bar-b-cue, and the latest Act of Congress outlawing terrorists from owning shoe polish is a direct attack on that tradition.

Who are you protecting? What are you hiding? Why is your hidden agenda? Why does the elevator only go to L? This is the REAL question. People will find out. The truth always outs!

edens's picture

>"Inside Tennessee" will

>"Inside Tennessee" will soon provide Internet archives of >their program. Did my actions prompt that decision? Maybe. >Maybe not.

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

R. Neal's picture

Just checking around, it

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

rocketsquirrel's picture

believe you are right

KGIS is funded through KUB, city and county. But the maps and data are copyrighted.

Mello's picture

try to lawyer up pro bono

Amish's picture

I think the point Randy's

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.

Mello's picture

It is a non-profit, funded mostly by government money

When in doubt- research :-)

(link...)

Mello's picture

you answered your own question

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.

Michael's picture

Then there's YouTube

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.

Amish's picture

Hi, Beanster. I think

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.

KTB's picture

It should be noted that the

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

Number9's picture

Some advice was good...

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

Great link KTB. And thanks also djuggler. By far the best advice in this thread.

From the KTB link:

Thus, Google not only threw money at YouTube: it threw its lawyers at YouTube too. Google’s lawyers are some of the most well-versed copyright lawyers in the world since so many of their lawsuits deal with that issue.

The goal here is simple. Google wants to own the #1 video sharing site (completely legal), own 100% of the ads on that site, and clarify many currently-ambiguous copyright issues in their favor. If all of that goes as planned, the $1.5 billion paid to YouTube was a small price to pay. But if they had never gotten involved, the potential losses were far greater than a billion or two. Since Google has a market capitalization of over $130 billion, even a dip of 1% means losses of over $1 billion. But if entire sections of their business model became legally uncertain, you can bet they’d lose a lot more than 1%, especially with their insanely high P/E ratio (the ratio between what their stock is worth and how much they make).

By fighting a lawsuit, Google gets to prove the legitimacy of Internet video distribution - something that will probably never flourish under the “old media” regime. Unfortunately for them, the DMCA protects site owners from liability of what its users do — or at least that’s the general interpretation. Letting YouTube fight this battle alone with their own lawyers might have resulted in a very public and unnecessary loss that would have crippled Google’s video ambitions and possibly caused collateral damage to a bunch of related industries (especially search). This would have forced everybody to play by the conglomerates’ rules, and taken anyway any guarantee of Google getting any cut of the video ad pie. Video sharing needs this clarification before it can move forward. And if Google legitimizes it, they will have the biggest video site on the web for their video ads to play.

FtnCity HAPPY's picture

I travel ALOT with work and

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.

KTB's picture

Nine,Can you please hurry

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

Mello's picture

While we are at it....

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.

Amish's picture

Niner: you claim others in

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.)

Number9's picture

I must take your advice?

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

So if I don't agree with your advice that is rude? How? There have been some rude comments here but not from me. Explain the ruse part. I ask people what they would do if they were in my shoes. The answer, lawyer up and STFU. You call that advice?

I ask the question to Attorneys Dewy, Cheatum, and Howe. If that is any of your business.

SnM's picture

Lord but you really get off

"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...

edens's picture

>>>Wonder whatever happened

>>>Wonder whatever happened to him...

I believe he's the ambassador to Poland.

Rachel's picture

Ambassador to Poland

Ouch, I think I just broke a rib....

R. Neal's picture

lawyer up and STFUThat was

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.

Amish's picture

No, you need not take my

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.

Stick Thrower's picture

9

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.

Number9's picture

Really great advice Stick Thrower...

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.

Can they all wear Guy Fawkes masks? That's for you edens.

edens's picture

Guy Fawkes? You read too

Guy Fawkes?

You read too many comic books.

CL's picture

Give Lambert a call. I'm

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

Mark Harmon's picture

Knox Co Commission and You Tube (an idea)

Wow, this certainly got lively. Let me suggest what I think is a workable plan. Knox County Cable Committee meets April 4th 8:30 a.m. I will suggest 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. The committee also likely will discuss and I hope take a stand on some of the controversial telecommunications bills pending in Nashville.

Mark Harmon

Number9's picture

Thanks Mark,

Wow, this certainly got lively. Let me suggest what I think is a workable plan. Knox County Cable Committee meets April 4th 8:30 a.m. I will suggest 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.

Considering the mission statement and funding of CTV I believe Mark's proposal to be fair to all parties.

The idea that myself or others have to go to the meetings and film them to work around CTV's claim of Copyright doesn't jive with the reason for CTV's existence.

CTV's mission statement reads, "The mission of CTV is to serve the community by providing a public forum for local residents, organizations, and government."

Since I pay for CTV I am asking them to fulfill their mission statement. Using an alleged Copyright to suppress these meetings is against the very reason for CTV.

Mark has offered a reasonable solution and I appreciate his efforts to resolve the situation.

KTB's picture

Mark, Thank you Mark! Please

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

FtnCity HAPPY's picture

"There are plenty of

"There are plenty of volunteers in this town who will undertake this task"

If some agreement can be made...

I would like to see other willing to do this. Like I have said before I travel and would be thrilled to see city and county meetings posted... But so far 9 is the only one that I have seen willing to step up.

Any takers on the city meetings?

R. Neal's picture

Check this

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.

Michael's picture

More for Nine to Ignore

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.

Number9's picture

Michael,

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?

Is that even possible?

Michael, it seems you do not wish for these meetings to be available on the Internet. Do you oppose CTV providing them on the Internet? Or just individual people posting them on YouTube?

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

KTB's picture

Any takers on the city

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

Number9's picture

Good for them,

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.

Knoxville Tennessee Blog has been my source for City Council meetings for over a month.

I applaud whoever is making those public meetings available on the Internet. I hope CTV will also have an Internet archive of City Council meetings and workshops.

Michael's picture

Michael, it seems you do not

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.

Number9's picture

I understand the TOC,

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.

I could post the meetings on Google Video. Unlimited time limit and much easier for me. Different TOC and not as restrictive as the TOC from YouTube.

So why not take the easy path? Because I never intended to do this as long as I have. I wanted CTV or the County to do this so I wouldn't have to. It really isn't my job or responsibility. It is their job and responsibility.

But someone needed to do it and apply the pressure needed so these meetings could be available.

Two things need to happen for people to be able to become part of the government decision making process. The first thing is people need to see the meetings. That is why I posted them on YouTube. People knew what it was and knew where to find it. That is why I have not posted on Google Video.

The second thing that must happen is the ability to post excerpts of meetings on blogs for discussion. My hope is that will be resolved in the Cable Television Committee that Mark Harmon is Vice Chairman of.

My ultimate goal is that the News Sentinel and the local Television stations will do their job and actually report the news. Since there is little hope of that I feel I had no choice but to post the meetings on the Internet.

It is not much different than carrying a sign in front of City Hall. Or writing a letter to the Editor. Or blogging. I hope to be able to stop posting the meetings soon. I don't like having to go against Mr. Vogle's wishes. I hope this can be worked out soon. But the citizens have a right to be involved in their government and the decisions made and that is impossible when the meetings are held in the middle of the day.

The first part of the storm water meeting is up. The James McMillan part is labeled separately. Parts III through VIII will be up later today. You will notice there was almost NO reporting about the storm water meeting anywhere in Knox County except this small piece in the News Sentinel and even more minimal blurbs on WATE and WBIR.

This will be more important than the Sheriff's pension or the Midway Industrial Park, so why is it being under reported? After all the commotion from the News Sentinel about the Sunshine Law a critical public meeting is given very short attention. What is the point of the News Sentinel? Are they just there to advertise sales, car lots, and garage sales?

At least people can see what happened by going to YouTube.

ultron's picture

We did have a preview story,

We did have a preview story, too:

(link...)

Number9's picture

Correction...

Ultron is right. The preview story is much more comprehensive than the story about the storm water meeting.

Rene Hoyos's group is very dedicated and does a good job. She is absolutely correct that the ordinance does not go far enough and also has "total disregard" for individual property rights.

The homeowners are getting the balloon note for years of inaction on the storm water issue. It is bad government and it is wrong. This is the issue the Ragsdale administration will be remembered for.

Some of the land that developers want to develop simply shouldn't be developed at the high density the developers desire. The ordinance is only one part of the problem. As long as variances are handed out like Candy nothing will change.

The entire storm water meeting is available on YouTube. You can search by using Knox County, storm water, or Publius9 as keywords.

From the KNS preview story:

Meanwhile, Rene Hoyos, executive director of the Clean Water Network, says the ordinance does not go far enough.

"We've been working with the county for over a year, and we find the (ordinance) to be rather deficient," Hoyos said. "They spent a bit of money on that ordinance. Part of our problem is the county is experiencing rapid growth. The best land is developed. They're now developing on sinkholes. We've made our comments known to them, and they have not done much to respond."

Problems, according to Hoyos, include the "total disregard" for individual property rights. It requires the landowner to be responsible for managing stormwater controls. That means that if a measure fails and causes flood damage to homes or pollutes a waterway, the landowner is responsible for damages, according to a memo from the network to Mayor Mike Ragsdale.

The Clean Water Network says Knox County is currently in violation of water quality standards. And the proposed method for regulating water pollution during construction, it contends, is a violation of the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act.

The county has 35 streams associated with 357 miles on the Tennessee Department of Conservation's impaired or polluted waters list. The county's use of minimum construction requirements increases the possibility of adding pollution to these streams where no pollution is allowed by law, TCWN says.

Amish's picture

The thing is, you could post

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.

Number9's picture

Amish,

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.

Please read this quote from Mr. Vogel's email, "In order to make and publish unedited and completely unchanged copies of our programs, a Permission Request must first be submitted in writing, along with a copy of your personal identification (eg. driver's license or passport). As a general rule, we do NOT grant permission to publish edited or changed versions of our programs (derivative works).”

That means no excerpts.

When I started doing this Google Video was not an option. I have applied for and received Director Status at YouTube that will soon allow the ability to post the entire meeting. It wasn't my idea to break a meeting into eight or more sections. It is very time consuming for me to post these meetings in sections.

If I post on Google Video the posts would be very difficult to find. You make it seem as if I have gone out of my way to not comply with Mr. Vogel. I asked permission, I asked for his guidelines. I asked if he could meet me halfway.

I hope someone will go down to CTV and give them a driver's license and publish the meetings on Google Video. I am ready to pass the baton to someone else. But I wanted to get the storm water meeting into the public domain because it is the most important issue on the horizon.

Amish's picture

I read Mr. Vogel's words.

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.

Number9's picture

You don't agree with Mr. Vogel about fair use...

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 don't agree with Mr. Vogel's view of fair use either.

Amish, in theory I could use Google for the full meetings with attribution and be fine. Even if Mr. Vogel insists on written permission and identification. The problem is they would be difficult to find.

In theory I could use YouTube for excerpts with commentary and attribution and be fine.

I could still receive legal action even if I was 100% correct in what I did. Being right is not enough. I am trying to find a way that Mr. Vogel will accept as fair and still provide the service until either the County or CTV can do so.

Rachel's picture

And you're pointedly

And you're pointedly ignoring Amish's concerns about the way you handled the dialog on here. They're concerns that have been echoed by others.

Do you honestly not care if everybody in this community thinks you're an unmitigated ass?

Number9's picture

I doubt you would understand...

Do you honestly not care if everybody in this community thinks you're an unmitigated ass?

So to get along you have to go along?

You get pretty tough after so many "pack attacks". Pardon me if I put what I think is right over your opinion of me. I'm like that.

Rachel's picture

People don't think you're an

People don't think you're an ass because of your opinions. They think you're an ass because of the way you handle yourself.

If you think that's somehow standing up for the right thing, you're just sad.

Number9's picture

Your strawman is showing...

People don't think you're an ass because of your opinions. They think you're an ass because of the way you handle yourself.

I can think of some people that agree with you. I can think of others that don't.

But you're writing in strawman tense for other people implying that "everybody" agrees with you. There are over 800 people on KnoxViews. You presume to speak for all of them? Perhaps you should "handle yourself" better.

For the new viewers, some biography, you have said at least a half dozen times that you would never communicate with me again. Several of those were solemn pledges made only to be broken.

So there is both some historical bias and pathology at work considering your opinion of all things Nine.

Rachel's picture

There are over 800 people on

There are over 800 people on KnoxViews. You presume to speak for all of them?

That's rich coming from someone who's presumed to speak for the taxpayers, the voters, and God know who else. Perhaps I should speak for the "little people" instead.

So there is both some historical bias and pathology at work considering your opinion of all things Nine.

I have no idea what "historical bias" means. If you mean I've formed an opinion of you based on past interactions, um, yeah. Duh.

You're right about the pathology. The spouse asks me about 3 times a week why in the world I bother to respond to you. We all really should stop, but then what would you do for attention?

Rachel's picture

Pathology

On further reflection, I think it is time to break myself of my #9 addiction. But I don't think I can do it alone. Perhaps I need an intervention.

Maybe we could get in on the tee vee.

WhitesCreek's picture

The phrase "Deliberately

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

Number9's picture

Calling all concerned Copyright ethicists...

Just curious to read your learned opinions of this:

Of course it is all in good fun. Barry Henderson, what a sense of humor.

It's protected as parody? Right?

Number9's picture

Butterfly,

BTW, you are not doing well in the poll, how does this make you feel?

I feel better than Scoobie and Mayor Ragsdale. At least the Sheriff took a good picture.

Number9's picture

metulj,

Yes. Bulk ripoff of copyrighted material is not. Glad you know this now. BTW, you are not doing well in the poll, how does this make you feel?

After all of your Holier than thou protestations about Copyright right law you post a YouTube link on Knoxblab with multiple Copyright violations?

You're just a little better than everyone else aren't you? Oh I know, you didn't post the YouTube video you just linked it, so there really isn't any hypocrisy.

Of course with Snoop Dog telling Bill O'Reilley to kiss his ass and blow him, I can see how you would forget your righteous defense of all things Copyright.

How's that glass house you live in?

Number9's picture

Not...

The Dutch TV company that recorded the show posted that clip. Nice try!

exactly. In fact, not at all.

(link...)

Number9's picture

So what?

Actually. Fact. It was on Metafilter. Youtube was the link on C&L. Keep trying!

It was listed on YouTube by an 18 year old. You linked the YouTube clip at Knoxblab. Where is your great concern about Copyrights when you link material at YouTube?

Using your rules of fair use it didn't meet the standard, because their was no commentary. You're a hypocrite.

Number9's picture

Not at all...

I guess you see my posting a LINK to a youtube video as equivalent to having a nail driven through your palms.

I know you live your tag line:

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite.

I have always said you are a very happy person. In this case extremely happy.

Number9's picture

Meanwhile over at Volunteer Voters...

No one is crying about Copyrights when A.C. post video from the Tennessee State Senate.

David Vogel of CTV has provided no explanation of why he will not give permission to use public meetings. Until he does I have to wonder if this his actions are political in nature.

Andy Axel's picture

So, #9 -- have you gotten a

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.

rocketsquirrel's picture

more importantly

good newshounds look for new ground to cover. rather than duplicate CTV, get a handheld dv cam, monitor the back corridor of the assembly room.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Don't forget the men's restroom.

Don't forget the men's restroom. Does it have 19 stalls?

Andy Axel's picture

David Vogel of CTV has

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.

CL's picture

I was looking at their

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

(link...)

Number9's picture

Thanks CL,

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

That really calls into question the judgement of David Vogel for his draconian Copyright demands.

· Knox County Commission [Co Comm 247/267] . . . Gavel to gavel coverage of Knox County Commission meetings . . . Executive Producer: Knox County Government - airs LIVE fourth Monday of every month at 1 p.m.

But there is more, remember how Mr. Vogel required that a person come down to CTV offices and sign a form and present a Drivers License? Look at this form from CTV:

(link...)

That is the Producers form. Isn't that too much? Is Mr. Vogel requiring a person to be a CTV Producer in order to post public meetings on YouTube? Now we learn from CL that the Knox County Commission is also the Producer for these public meetings.

Is there an effort to suppress these public meetings? Considering what R. Larry Smith said in the last meeting one has to wonder.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

style="display:block"
data-ad-format="autorelaxed"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3296520478850753"
data-ad-slot="5999968558">

Upcoming events:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives