Networks Object to Ads Using News Footage

[Rose Siding]

snip>

Networks say the interviews are copyrighted and thus cannot be used without permission. That has prompted sponsors of some such ads to discontinue running them. Others have not canceled their spots, claiming they fall under the "fair use" provision of copyright law, which permits use of clips for criticism, news reporting, teaching or research.

"The argument is that if it's on TV and it's a news segment, then we can treat it as such as well," said David Axelrod, a Democratic ad maker.
...............
In an ad criticizing Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s links to the oil services company he once headed, Kerry's campaign included footage of Cheney proclaiming on "Meet the Press" in 2003: "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years."
...............
Kerry is shown during the interview saying that he has been "accurate precisely about what took place" when he tossed away in protest the ribbons he had received with his Vietnam War medals.

Then several comments Kerry made appear to be pasted together to form a herky-jerky statement: "Medals. Ribbons. We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us. And I'm proud of that." In the event, Kerry threw away his ribbons and the medals of veterans who could not attend the protest.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/ads_news_footage

How can anyone possible equate the use of newsclips in the 2 snipped examples? The article's point is about the networks objecting to the use of any of their footage, but the examples the reporter uses draw a remarkably stark contrast between methods used by the two factions.

[Cocoa]

1. I agree with your comment

two different issues, using the copyrighted material at all, and using it dishonestly.

It reminds me of a lot of commentary on the smear boat ads. The obviously most important thing to say about them was that they were lies, but most of the commentary was about "revisiting Vietnam" or about the campaign finance aspect.

[Supersedeas]

8. yes, this distinction merits further discussion by so-called reporters

[onehandle]

2. Dear Networks:

Fuck You. Let your news divisions do their jobs and this wouldn't happen.

Just another example of how the media loves to make themselves the story.

I say again, sirs: Fuck You.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Public interest.

They can't get proprietary over statements made in public.

[CarolynEC]

4. How a bout a deal: We'll stop using your "news" footage in ads...

... if you stop running campaign ads 24/7 while passing it off as "news" coverage.

[AIJ Alom]

5. Dear networks have you heard about this one.

We who know it's a fake call it clip flop. The RNC calls it Kerry on Iraq (they also have a website and have been handing out the 20 minute segment on DVD). These morons have been passing out your precious copyrighted material for months now.

Here's the response from the Kerry campaign on clip flop, note all the uses of your precious material by the RNC.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0728.pdf


DUer's feel free to post this everywhere.

[question everything]

6. If Cheney's comments were later reported in a print media

perhaps an ad can use that story, instead.

[Eric J in MN]

7. It's fair use. The public benefit of

seeing the exceprpt in a campaign commercial trumps copyrights.