Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Today’s Hamilton Canal groundbreaking event was really well-run, and very well attended. I saw media folks from NECN, Ted Panos of WCAP, the Sun was there (I stood next to Matt Murphy, where I could get the good photo shots) and LTC was there taping it (I’m sure they will be running it on multiple channels soon). But the least pleasant “media” run-in I had (okay, the only unpleasant one) was one John McDonough, producer of the too-AM LTC show, City Life. McDonough walked up to me, and in a very nasty tone, told me to not use his show on my blog. Then abruptly walked away.
As always, you think of the retort far too late to do any good, but seconds later I realized that yes, he has a right to tell me not to use his show on the blog, but no, he does not have the right to tell me not to run short clips of his show on my blog (like here) for use in commentary and discussion. It’s called “fair use” and it’s pretty clear that my post and clip falls so far into the boundaries of fair use, it’s in the capital city.
What are the boundaries of fair use? You can read a lot about it here, but some highlights:
In fact, the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Let’s run quickly through the six scenarios, with the reminder that these only apply to copyrighted works, not to public domain or Creative Commons-licensed items.
Comment or critique. “Video makers have the right to use as much of the original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny… So long as the maker analyzes, comments on, or responds to the work itself, the means may vary.” Just don’t copy so much that the new piece becomes “a way of satisfying the audience’s taste for the thing that is being quoted.”
I know that my little one-minute clip no where near satiated your need to watch the whole two hours of City Life. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
Copying to launch a discussion. The paper suggests that posting video clips of copyrighted works to kick off a discussion is fine because the purpose of starting a conversation is a “transformative” use of the clip in question. Just realize that “the mere fact that a site permits comments is not enough,” and posters should make it clear that they want to discuss the clip’s content.
I’m not getting paid distributing these clips. I am putting very short clips, in this case, 1 minute 9 seconds worth, into a post for purposes of discussion and commentary, both of which are obvious fair use. It’s plain in my post that I include it for purposes of discussion on that topic (that of Hayden, the campaign, and his reaction to having his views exposed for all to see), and to show a point.
So, sorry, John McDonough, but I can use pieces of your show on this blog under Fair Use rules, and I won’t let you intimidate me. And trust me, I’m not interested in falling asleep right after waking up by watching your show, so it won’t happen often anyway. (And a word of advice…if you don’t want my attention, you shouldn’t mention and insult the blog and its bloggers too often. Just, you know, some common sense.)
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.778 seconds
November 12th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Mcdonough is part of the good ole boy network ive seen his show, they do nothing but attack the manager, on one show he called the manager a clown, the other guy george anthes is a big fan of alan kazanjian, he was almost in tears when kaz lost his seat, they both are also big fans of regina faticanti, no balance to the show at all, quite the snooze fest..
November 12th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Does he own LTC? Why does he have so much animosity?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, and I know that you will, but isn’t LTC in part funded by Lowell Taxpayers?
I know that Comcast kicks in some bucks but I thought that the city does as well.
If Lowell does pay for part of the LTC budget then McDonough would have a hard time defending his “rights” in court unless the actually pays for the production costs and “air time” out of his own pocket.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Excellent point about who owns and pays for LTC, but my understanding is that the critical issue isn’t one of ownership/rights to the channel, so much as ownership/rights to the copyright. I think when you produce a show for LTC, you don’t ‘hand over’ the copyright rights. I think what you do is ‘hand over’ rights to LTC for them to broadcast as they wish, which doesn’t actually ‘erase’ or ‘override’ your own copyrights.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:41 am
McDonough owns the copyright to whatever he produces, same as any other public access producer. LTC only agrees to play it and owns no copyright to his or any other public access show. The shows on Ch 10 are produced and owned by the station (not counting shows submitted by government and military).
November 13th, 2009 at 8:28 am
ER:
You are somewhat incorrect.
PEG (Public, Educational, Government) cable access television is funded through a fee assessed to cable television customers by the provider; Comcast. The City has a contract with Comcast giving them the right to operate in the City. For that privilege the City receives those access fees and the City, in turn, provides LTC with funding.
LTC also, on occasion, applies and receives grants for specific programs.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Did John acquire rights to the Sun that he displayed in that story? Pot, Kettle calling, you’re black.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Normally I don’t post on these blogs….but I read them everyday…since it is part of my job as a member of the Boston media. But since I was there and saw this conversation between Lynne and Mr McD (I was standing next to Steve from LTC) I feel qualified to offer my opinion of what went down.
Mr. McD walked over to Lynne and simply said “You don’t have permission to use my clips on your blog”. She responded “OK”. That was the end of it. I would not consider either one of them to have been nasty - perception is everything.
Now as for the law…….copyright laws have been changing rapidly. George Harrison had a multi-million dollar judgement against him because “My Sweet Lord” sounded a little like “Sweet Talking Guy”. “The Twilight Zone” radio show had to pay huge penalties for using John Williams et al music that was written for the Irwin Allen TV Shows (the defense had argued that the underscores had been released in a CD box set to the public - but they lost).
The Zapruder film of the Kennedy assasination is only a few seconds long - but the copyrights have always been owned and rented for huge sums of money - and that was a public event - a daily TV show is NOT even a public event.
As Mr Lynne and Link say the copyright of the show belongs to the creator and producer and not to LTC. Therefore only the owner of the work has the right to allow it to be used.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:34 am
John, John, it’s time to bury your insecurities. Lynne is providing you with free publicity. Enjoy.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Yes, but fair use is fair use. We’re not talking about me posting 20 minutes of a 30 minute show. We’re talking about a 1 minute clip of a 2 hour show.
Marigold…interesting point. When I post a quote from the Sun, I use the smallest snippets I can to make my point (about a sentence or two if I can), and always always produce commentary around it, and always link to the full text. Because obviously you can’t discuss something without referring to the original text. You might have encountered this phenomenon, say, when…you wrote a paper for school. Quote, attribute, source, commentary. End of story.
This is the same purpose for posting the short clip - because I can’t comment on the clip without showing people what it is. It’s that simple, and as I said, fair use is fair use.
Also, “Mike B,” you weren’t there. I think I can safely say I was there, and I know the tone of voice used. He was quite rude and also using an angry tone. Obviously that makes perfect sense given how he dislikes me and this blog so far as I know (and how much he loves the GOB, which is proven every time his show is on LTC), but nonetheless, it was a very unprofessional encounter.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Fran: lol I was going to say that at the end of my post but didn’t.
Fact is, back when Mr Anthes was incessantly attacking me personally on his morning radio show, calling me all manner of names, comparing me “as extreme” as NAMBLA, the KKK and David Duke, and Nazis (which by the way he says now that he doesn’t remember doing it), I wrote a thank you note of sorts, noting that traffic on our site was going up. Kept him a lot quieter about us after that. Either way, we won.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I never even heard of his show until you showed the short clip.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I still think it’s funny that they’re even on LTC given how much they used to complain about LTC when they were on CAP. I wonder what caused this change of heart? Wouldn’t they consider public access TV socialism? They seem to be against that sort of thing.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Also, back to what Mimi said in post 6 (and this is a little bit of tangent): the cable companies never should have been allowed to pass the cost of PEG onto subscribers. Originally the point of having them provide PEG was a trade-off for them being allowed to hang cable on every street.