ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the difference with these is these are reposting of BBC clips, which the bbc seems happy to allow on social media, however to edit and insert into our own work is a different matter (that's a derivitive work).
That sounds sensible. So, in practice, we wouldn't have to take down or re-edit any of the videos on our site(s) since I don't think there are any which have inserted extracts from interviews. The BBC ruling only applies to the video about which the question was asked. Storm (in a teacup) over.
Vin wrote:Do you consider this decision sound and has the EC acted wisely in this case?I. for one, think, yes. For all sorts of reasons. First, it wasn't urgent. Second, if we go by that reply from the BBC they wouldn't give (sell) us permission to use the interviews even if we did "re-edit" them. Third, the BBC are not going to pursue us anyway, any more than they are going to pursue all the other parties that are re- using their political interviews.
Gnome wrote:BBC Motion Gallery wrote:"If you can prove that the footage you wish to use will be unidentifiable as deriving from a BBC programme (i.e. it will be a close up shot of the interviewee only speaking to camera with no identifiable studio background in vision) and that this interview will not be used in any way to promote or endorse your organisation then we may be able to license this content to you.If you have access to this material currently please feel free to put together a rough edit of how this footage would feature in your introductory video and we can take a final view on whether we could license this content to you.However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."Emphasis added
That's just the sort of answer I'd expect them to give if you asked them direct. Anyway, presumably, this is in answer to a question from a private individual in a specific context?It's more a question of "don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer" than of looking a gift horse in the mouth as you seem to want to do. Luckily it wasn't us that asked the question and let's accept the gift horse of the interviews.
Vin wrote:I have to admit that I think the BBC would look ridiculous taking political parties to court for sharing their own political interviews. I think it would be equally ridiculous regarding the use of short clips of interviews.' BBC sues political party for using clips of their own interviews' Yeah, right.I agree entirely. I'd even say "bring it on". Of course they'd first tell us to take it down before going to Court, so there's a failsafe anyway.
If there is a copyright issue over using TV political interviews (which I doubt) I would have thought that "re-editing" them to take out references to the source would make matters worse. In any event, no convincing evidence has yet been produced that using these interviews on our site, as other parties do on theirs, would be a breach of copyright. All we seem to have had is an interpretation of an email reply which we have not seen in full or in context. Frankly, I don't believe there is a "ban" on using them without copyright permission.
gnome wrote:As a result of misinformation and ignorance a perfectly good in-house video was ordered to be taken down off the internet by the 2016 Executive Committee,That's what I was afraid it is all about — getting back at those EC members and branches who opposed that video. A classic case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face", defined by wikipedia as:
Quote:an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.It is petty and childish and has no place in Party decision-making. Let's hope that the decision of the March EC not to go down this road is the end of the matter.
I can't see anything wrong with the use of extracts from interviews and statements by Party members. I don't know about the other images but I assume they raised no copyright issues. Maybe some members thought they might. But there's no point in raking over the past and raising the copyright issue with regard to our political interviews. That's just cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Latest news: SWP deserts the sinking TUSC ship:https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/uk-far-left-splits-swp-leaves-trade-unionist-and-socialist-coalition-tusc/#
Vin wrote:During my enquiries, I learned that BBC political Interviews cannot be used by political organisations.I'm prepared to believe that if asked this question directly that's how they might be obliged to reply but I'm not convinced they would not and do not tolerate it in practice (unless it was implied that the BBC endorsed the views expressed which of course nobody watching a political interview would think).All political parties do this. For example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFKIot9UNAkhttps://youtu.be/YEyrw1CgqAUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8e_jPQx9jIWe'd be completely stupid to take our election interviews and broadcasts down.
I can't see anything relevant on that link about who the "we" is. Maybe it's my browser.I still don't really understand. Is it the case that, because someone unwisely ignored the advice that "if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question", we now cannot use the various election and other interviews we have had over the years? Insisting on taking these off our sites would seem to be a case of "cuting off your nose to spite your face." If so, I would have thought that the EC made a sound decision in refusing to go down that road.
Quote:the BBC replied:"Our BBC research team can’t find any mention of this interview in the news library database. It might be something that just hasn’t been kept"and when they did find it:"We have approval from BBC News to licence the footage on the following proviso – If they remove the straps and do not reference the BBC it should be fine to licence."There are two things I don't undersatand here.1. Is the second quote a direct quote from someone at the BBC? If so, who is the "We" who have approval?2. Have or have we not got a licence? If we have, why the need to take the video down? All we would need to do is remove all references to the BBC.
Pity the whole graph doesn't show (but it will if you click the link). It seems to be about the growth of money wages in ten year periodsrather than pay levels. I see that it's from the person who writes and speaks about Fully Automated Luxury Communism. After listening to a podcast he did last year for the New Economics Foundation I tried to contact him to see if he would do a talk for us but he didn't reply if someome wants to tweet him to try again. Mind you, I don't think William Morris would have thought much of the idea.and of course socialism/communism does not depend on full automation just on the common ownership of the means of production whether automated or not.
The famous 1911 reply to W.B. of Upton Park was largely of symbolic significance since what a minority of Socialist MPs should or should not do was not an immediate issue (and still isn't) and, when the situation arises, they will do as democratically instructed and we can't anticipate or dictate now what this will be. The reply wanted to leave open the option of them being instructed to vote under certain circumstances for some measure proposed by others. In this sense it was a declaration that the Socialist Party was not opposed to all reform measures on principle even though it was against proposing any itself. How could we be, however insubstantial or temporary the improvement might be? Otherwise we'd just be a party of the idea of socialism and not that of the material interest of the working class.
Another illustration of how capital can't do without labour — and how British capital, outside the EU, won't be able to either, so (im)migration is not going to stop:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/business/economy/denmark-jobs-full-employment.html?_r=0Looks as if King Canute has learned his lesson in his home country but not (yet) in his British domain.
