Nixon was a dummy - NJ Pike case says he could have invoked copyright to suppress the White House tapes COMMENT
Posted Thu, 2007-05-24 19:46
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) has launched an extraordinary lawsuit to suppress leaked video of a car crashing into the Egg Harbor toll plaza and bursting into flames on the Garden State Parkway on the morning of May 10. This after the video has been shown on local TV and posted to dozens of websites and viewed by hundreds of thousands of people in the intervening two weeks.
In support of the lawsuit the Turnpike Authority has filed an application for copyright status for the video.
"Because the videos of the car accident were recorded using the NJTA’s cameras and support equipment, the videos are original creations of the NJTA and constitute the copyrighted property of the NJTA," Turnpike Authority attorney Donald E Taylor writes in a complaint filed Tuesday in US District Court in Newark.
This has to be the most frivolous lawsuit of its kind in years.
By this logic any document "leaked" - provided unofficially - to the press could be declared "copyright" and suppressed! Why not the Nixon tapes? Or the Pentagon Papers? After all they were an original creation of writers at the Pentagon. Come to think of it the 2-page critique of NTTA's proposal for SH121, we recently published in full, was also an original creation of someone or other - we were told KPMG and Goldman Sachs, but Texas DOT claimed authorship.
Was that publication a breach of copyright? We sleep soundly knowing that's ludicrous because of the established rights of a free press to report news and comment.
The NJ Turnpike's lawyers have an impossible battle since US courts have consistently interpreted the first amendment to the US Constitution as having supremacy in cases where material is of news value. Fair use doctrines have been held to allow use of materials that otherwise have proprietary intellectual rights attached to them.
The Turnpike's lawyers have to deal with the established right in US law to reproduce parts of even copyrighted works without permission for reporting, discussion, argument, scholarship, and research.
If any use of materials without permission could be held a breach of copyright then President Bush could have had his lawyers declare later his Iraq "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier copyright, and anyone using video, pictures, or words of that could be threatened with breach of Dubbya's "copyright"!
Argument and free speech would be impossible if people could invoke copyright to prevent others quoting them or using their materials without their permission.
Copyright also requires some creativity, since the mere act of transcribing or copying something doesn't allow the transcriber to claim copyright. So even the Turnpike's claim of copyright for a surveillance camera video seems dubious. Second, even if they were to establish a copyright they'd have to show the presentation of a selection of the video was of no news value or that its use exceeded fair use limits.
The Turnpike Authority's lawsuit asks the US district court to declare that the posting of the video violates copyright law, and it asks the court to order three defendants - Google's YouTube, Break.com and LiveLeak.com -Â to take the video off their websites. For good measure it seeks damages and legal fees - for posting the video before the Turnpike had even said it came from its cameras let alone made that copyright claim.
The Turnpike complaint claims the display of the video "serves no worthwhile purpose."
You could argue to the contrary that it DOES indeed serve a worthwhile purpose by dramatically demonstrating that if you drive a car at 65mph into a toll plaza, whether because you drive when sleepy or while unwell enough to lose consciousness, then you are liable to come to a very bad end. By that argument the video could be said to make people think twice about driving when drowsy or unwell, and therefore its presentation could save lives and is in the public interest.
Most ridiculous is the claim of a Turnpike spokesman that the video should not have been used because it was "disturbing" and "we didn't think the family should have to see it."
The family didn't have to see it just because it was on TV or posted to websites. The family consists of people who are capable of controlling their TVs and their computers, and who can choose to watch, or choose not to see the video.
If the video had shown the victim writhing in agony amid flames one could argue self-restraint should be exercised and that part should not be shown out of decency and a desire not to shock, although there is plenty of "disturbing" and shocking film footage out there of people slumping at the retort of firing squads, people knived in murder, of horrible accidents, and of ghastly wounds in battle. How could we get a feel for the evil of murder, or the brutal reality of warfare, for example, if everything anyone found "disturbing" were censored as the Turnpike spokesman suggests.
Also the toll plaza video in question isn't even grisly like lots of stuff out there. All it shows is a grainy remote camera view of a car crashing hard into a toll booth and bursting into flames. That's all anyone can see.
Nowhere is there any silhouette even of the unfortunate or careless driver amid the flames.
That the Turnpike Authority should litigate over use of this tame video can only attract ridicule to the Turnpike, and waste money uselessly on lawyers fees. Hopefully the judge will quickly dismiss this ridiculous lawsuit, and minimize damage to the Turnpike's reputation and budget.
TOLLROADSnews 2007-05-24
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) has launched an extraordinary lawsuit to suppress leaked video of a car crashing into the Egg Harbor toll plaza and bursting into flames on the Garden State Parkway on the morning of May 10. This after the video has been shown on local TV and posted to dozens of websites and viewed by hundreds of thousands of people in the intervening two weeks. In support of the lawsuit the Turnpike Authority has filed an application for copyright status for the video.
"Because the videos of the car accident were recorded using the NJTA’s cameras and support equipment, the videos are original creations of the NJTA and constitute the copyrighted property of the NJTA," Turnpike Authority attorney Donald E Taylor writes in a complaint filed Tuesday in US District Court in Newark.
This has to be the most frivolous lawsuit of its kind in years.
By this logic any document "leaked" - provided unofficially - to the press could be declared "copyright" and suppressed! Why not the Nixon tapes? Or the Pentagon Papers? After all they were an original creation of writers at the Pentagon. Come to think of it the 2-page critique of NTTA's proposal for SH121, we recently published in full, was also an original creation of someone or other - we were told KPMG and Goldman Sachs, but Texas DOT claimed authorship.
Was that publication a breach of copyright? We sleep soundly knowing that's ludicrous because of the established rights of a free press to report news and comment.
The NJ Turnpike's lawyers have an impossible battle since US courts have consistently interpreted the first amendment to the US Constitution as having supremacy in cases where material is of news value. Fair use doctrines have been held to allow use of materials that otherwise have proprietary intellectual rights attached to them.
The Turnpike's lawyers have to deal with the established right in US law to reproduce parts of even copyrighted works without permission for reporting, discussion, argument, scholarship, and research.
If any use of materials without permission could be held a breach of copyright then President Bush could have had his lawyers declare later his Iraq "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier copyright, and anyone using video, pictures, or words of that could be threatened with breach of Dubbya's "copyright"!
Argument and free speech would be impossible if people could invoke copyright to prevent others quoting them or using their materials without their permission.
Copyright also requires some creativity, since the mere act of transcribing or copying something doesn't allow the transcriber to claim copyright. So even the Turnpike's claim of copyright for a surveillance camera video seems dubious. Second, even if they were to establish a copyright they'd have to show the presentation of a selection of the video was of no news value or that its use exceeded fair use limits.
The Turnpike Authority's lawsuit asks the US district court to declare that the posting of the video violates copyright law, and it asks the court to order three defendants - Google's YouTube, Break.com and LiveLeak.com -Â to take the video off their websites. For good measure it seeks damages and legal fees - for posting the video before the Turnpike had even said it came from its cameras let alone made that copyright claim.
The Turnpike complaint claims the display of the video "serves no worthwhile purpose."
You could argue to the contrary that it DOES indeed serve a worthwhile purpose by dramatically demonstrating that if you drive a car at 65mph into a toll plaza, whether because you drive when sleepy or while unwell enough to lose consciousness, then you are liable to come to a very bad end. By that argument the video could be said to make people think twice about driving when drowsy or unwell, and therefore its presentation could save lives and is in the public interest.
Most ridiculous is the claim of a Turnpike spokesman that the video should not have been used because it was "disturbing" and "we didn't think the family should have to see it."
The family didn't have to see it just because it was on TV or posted to websites. The family consists of people who are capable of controlling their TVs and their computers, and who can choose to watch, or choose not to see the video.
If the video had shown the victim writhing in agony amid flames one could argue self-restraint should be exercised and that part should not be shown out of decency and a desire not to shock, although there is plenty of "disturbing" and shocking film footage out there of people slumping at the retort of firing squads, people knived in murder, of horrible accidents, and of ghastly wounds in battle. How could we get a feel for the evil of murder, or the brutal reality of warfare, for example, if everything anyone found "disturbing" were censored as the Turnpike spokesman suggests.
Also the toll plaza video in question isn't even grisly like lots of stuff out there. All it shows is a grainy remote camera view of a car crashing hard into a toll booth and bursting into flames. That's all anyone can see.
Nowhere is there any silhouette even of the unfortunate or careless driver amid the flames.
That the Turnpike Authority should litigate over use of this tame video can only attract ridicule to the Turnpike, and waste money uselessly on lawyers fees. Hopefully the judge will quickly dismiss this ridiculous lawsuit, and minimize damage to the Turnpike's reputation and budget.
TOLLROADSnews 2007-05-24