Chalk one up for fair use : C-SPAN has agreed to loosen the copyright of the public domain footage they use

I am a member of The Open House Project, a collaborative and bipartisan effort organized by The Sunlight Foundation to bring practices of transparency and openness to Congress through the use of digital and internet technologies.

Today we are able to declare a huge win for bloggers and citizen journalists alike. This is what Beltway Blogroll reports :

C-SPAN To Offer Free Access To Hearings
Andrew Noyes, one of my senior writers, has been covering this breaking story for Technology Daily the past couple of weeks. It started when House Republicans criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. -- and then retracted that criticism -- for posting footage from House floor debates on her new blog, The Gavel.

The story sparked a movement to make more congressional video freely available, and C-SPAN quickly obliged.

Here's what two C-SPAN executives said about the change in policy:

-- Executive Committee Chairman William Bresnan, the CEO of Bresnan Communications: "The C-SPAN board sees this as helping us carry out C-SPAN's public service mission. The cable industry created this network to allow citizens greater access to their government, and this enhancement appropriately reflects the rapid changes in the online information world."

-- President and co-chief operating officer Rob Kennedy: "Giving voice to the average citizen has been a centerpiece of C-SPAN's journalism since our network's founding in 1979. As technology advances, we want to continue to be a leader in providing citizens with the tools to be active participants in the democratic process.

This is huge.

Government cameras film all Congressional proceedings. The footage though, is broadcast mostly through C-SPAN. It is not clear to me if C-SPAN is a 501c(3) --even though their tag line is "created by the cable companies, offered as a public service" nowhere in their site does it say they are a not-for-profit.

If they are indeed a non-profit, they have been quite bullish about the "copyright" they hold on the public domain footage they broadcast. Basically they've made it impossible to use congressional video footage by having a few seconds of original content a the beginning of all congressional videos, slapping their logo on it and claiming, then it's their original content.

As much as I would like to take at face value the comments made by the higher ups at C-SPAN, this admission of fair use shows they are scared of losing what made them precious : their role of gatekeepers.

C-SPAN knows they are losing the battle with bloggers and citizen media. They were vicious, C&Ding bloggers who showed clips of Stephen Colbert's pwining of George Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner. To this day, the only way to get it is at Video.Google.

You'd think they are TimeWarner-AOL ... Well, technically they are.

Given C-SPAN is paid for by all the major cable companies, their copyright and fair use practices have mirrored those of their funders. Which is why I am not satisfied with their Creative Commons announcement.

I want C-SPAN to declare that all Congressional footage they broadcast is public domain and free to use, alter and broadcast.

This is an incredibly important step because many bloggers are now functioning as small media business owners. The onus of fair use would fall into incorporated bloggers like yours truly, Crooks & Liars, DailyKos and others.

Thanks to the DMCA, it is easy for a company like TimeWarner-AOL to pre-emptively C&D me and other bloggers over the use of a cover of a magazine. I would have to take them to court to prove that my use of the cover of one of their magazines is fair use. They know it's fair use but they get away with criminalizing free speech by bloggers because, as either present of potential small business owners, we pose a threat to their monopoly.

Remember, blogs have the uncanny ability to easily network with each other. In theory, if the whole progressive blogosphere worked together as one service in which each blog were a channel, we could create a network effect that could rival the cable companies.

They know this. Instead of looking at it as an opportunity, the cable companies, especially Time-Warner, have looked at is a threat. The cable companies after all the #1 lobbyists against net neutrality.

This is a great victory, no doubt about it; but we need to do a bit more work in the fight for copy rights and fair use.

On that note : A partial list of the bloggers and internet activists responsible for this coup :

Abrams Stern, MetaVid
Andrew Rasiej, Personal Democracy Forum
Ari Schwartz, Center for Democracy and Technology
Ben Rahn, Act Blue
Britt Blaser, Open Resource Group
Clay Shirky, NYU’s ITP
Conor Kenny, Congresspedia
Dan Manatt, PoliticsTV
Dan Newman, MapLight
David Alpert, Drinking Liberally
David Moore, Open Congress
Ellen Miller, Sunlight Foundation
Ezra Klein, blogger
Gary Bass, OMB Watch
Jock Friendly, Legistorm
John Wonderlich, Congressional Committees Project,
Josh Tauberer, Govtrack
Liza Sabater, Culture Kitchen
Marc Laitin, Wired for Change
Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner
Markos Moulitsas-Zuniga, Daily Kos
Matt Stoller, MyDD
Micah Sifry, Personal Democracy Forum
Mike Turk, NCTA
Nancy Scola, blogger
Nancy Watzman, Public Campaign
NZ Bear, Porkbusters and Truth Laid Bear
Robert Bluey, Heritage Foundation
Ryan Alexander, TaxPayers for Common Sense
Scott Chacon, Open Source Democracy Project
Sheila Krumholz, Center for Responsive Politics
Stacy Holmstedt, AZ Congresswatch
Steve Urquhart, Politicopia


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | |

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 944 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify