An interesting story, and a well-reasoned approach to the question. My compliments.

Wow, first North America faces a major cold spell, despite global warmening, and now hell has frozen over with Lee's reasonable comment.

A day late and a dollar short. The fools at the RSC have already retracted their initial press release that reads

Earlier today, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) released a document about the Speaker's use of copyrighted/trademarked C-SPAN material on a Congressional website. The document was based upon a conversation that RSC staff had with Barry Katz, the Manager of C-SPAN Video Assets (and the employee identified as being directly responsible for answering questions to Congress about the use of C-SPAN material).

Bruce Collins, the Corporate Vice President and General Counsel of C-SPAN, called post release and said that the information provided by the C-SPAN employee to the RSC was incorrect.

Given this contradictory information, the RSC wanted to be the first set the record straight and withdraw the information included in the release.

So, who will be the first here to update your original post?

What Kevin did beats the heck out of linking to a video of Michelle Malkin shrieking at the camera doing a lousy impersonation of Nancy Pelosi shrieking at C-Span, which is the norm around here.

The RSC has already scrubbed the press release from their Feb 2007 press releases

http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/pressreleases07.shtml

It's kind of sad that you are so full of venom for
anything that tries to make Pelosi or any Democrat look bad that you look before you leap.

Score another notch for right wing blog 'credibility'...ha!

leap before look is what I meant to say...d'oh

Get used to it Jaku. Demo's wanted power, the scrutiny comes with it. ww

"Score another notch for right wing blog 'credibility'...ha!"

Naw - Not buying into the easy answers, and sticking with the story and seeing where it leads, is what builds credibility.

If Kevin is smart he'll stay on this and see where it leads him. Who's to say Bruce Collins is correct, or that Collin's policy has always been applied uniformly and fairly?

Kevin may be on the trail of something, or maybe not - but he shouldn't give up just because Bruce Collins blew the whistle and declared "game over".

Good for Pelosi. I encourage any and all House/Senate members to put as much transparency in government as possible.

Naw - Not buying into the easy answers, and sticking with the story and seeing where it leads, is what builds credibility.

Only if Kevin comes back and updates his story with the "never mind" outcome. Unlike Kim's "bumped and updated" attempt to squeeze one more drop of scandal out of a story that had already been thoroughly debunked.

I was about to say -- I think that if this is at a .gov site, Pelosi may indeed have the right to use the material under "fair use."

--|PW|--

Good for Pelosi. I encourage any and all House/Senate members to put as much transparency in government as possible. Posted by: jp2 at February 15, 2007 06:28 PM

And if she is in fact using copyrighted material without permission? Is that still "good?"

Floor debate and proceedings fall under 'Fair Use' and cane be labeled public domain, committee hearings however are not.

Case closed, but somehow I get the feeling the wizzers are going to do everything in their power to draw this non-scandal out as long as humanly possible, trying so hard to push a story that has already fizzled out and died.

Just admit it, you jumped the gun and were wrong.

The "Gavel", sheesh,can you say drunk on power and democrat media at the same time. The witch and her party are straight up traitors.

jaku, it is NOT quite as "case closed" as you think.

I am no copyright lawyer, but I do deal with it a LOT at the Day Job. While the event might be "public domain," a case can be argued that CSPAN's coverage represents an "interpretation" of the event and therefore would fall under copyright law. For example, photographers take pictures of public events all the time, but their actual photos are protected by copyright. I think the most famous example of privately-owned film footage of a very public event would be the Zapruder film.

Now, if CSPAN has a history of zealously going after those who use its footage, then the case is a bit clearer. Further, if Pelosi has been using it without specific permission, it puts a major hurting on any future enforcement of rights by CSPAN. By allowing Pelosi to use it without specific permission (which appears to be the case), they have opened themselves up to future cases where others, using "the Pelosi precedent," will do what she is allegedly doing.

Alternately, they could simply link to Pelosi's use and indirectly do what CSPAN has allegedly stopped in the past.

It's a convoluted case, and I am glad Kevin is atop it. It would give me headaches...

J.

"And if she is in fact using copyrighted material without permission? Is that still "good?""

What's more important to you? CSPAN's copyright or having video records of the Senate/House floor? Quite frightening if you think the former.

(And I do think it falls under public domain, so it's not much of a discussion)

Jay, thank you. Now it is Jaku and the others who have jumped the gun. When will THEY learn?

The RSC release and retraction is what lead me to this story. The fact they backed off their story is irrelevant to my look at the issue. To me the issue is whether they are treating the Speaker's office different than they would me or any other blogger. I don't have the answer yet, but I suspect they are.

Also you should follow the link to the metavid site and read the legal issues. They take public domain footage; slap their trademark on it then they've got content you can't freely use.

They were presumably looking to make a quick RSC was

Jaku

leap before look is what I meant to say...d'oh

Oh, really? Practice what you preach. You are a lying, slandering piece of garbage.

There are a many smart, witty and engaging leftist commenters in these threads. You are not among them.

It's remarkable how jaku so desperately wants to stop this discussion. "look before you leap." "Case closed." "fizzled." "you jumped the gun and were wrong."

It raises some issues that some folks find intriguing, if not downright fascinating. I, for one, am interested in how it turns out -- regardless of party affiliations of the involved worthies.

And any discussion that features Lee being calm and rational and reasonable needs to be preserved, if for no other reason.

J.

The RSC is letting it go because they're just gracious. We should simply conclude that Pelosi is violating a copyright.

"We should simply conclude that Pelosi is violating a copyright."

There is no law or rule a Democrat hasn't and won't break. That's what criminals do , breaks laws. Democrats are Criminals. It's relly that simple.

As an IP attorney, Jay Tea's characterization is generally accurate and fair with regard to how material qualifies for copyright protection. CSPAN has copyright protection under 17 USC sect. 106, though it may be generally limited to the embodiment transmitted (or as recorded for re-transmission).

Whether CSPAN is maintaining a consistent enforcement policy - that is anyone's guess.

What I want to know is if the government is recording congressional sessions, why don't they just make the archive available online?

If the republicans want to motivate their base they might try and do something a little bit more substantial then complaining about Nancy Pelosi all the time.

Fox News, on the retraction:

------------
GOP Group Retreats After Making Factual Error While Criticizing Speaker Pelosi

WASHINGTON -- The House-based Republican Study Committee on Thursday backed off its attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- in which it suggested she had violated C-SPAN's copyright -- after learning it had its facts wrong.

"This is yet another baseless attack by the Republicans. It's another desperate attempt to avoid focusing on the real issues that affect the American people," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said after the retraction.

The error occurred early in the afternoon, when the RSC distributed a press release criticizing the speaker for using House floor speech footage on her Web log, The Gavel, that had been taped off C-SPAN and distributed on YouTube. C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company that airs footage of the House and Senate activities, including all floor sessions.

"The blog violated copyright and trademark law on the very first day. Not once, not twice, but 16 times," read the release. "The RSC spoke with C-SPAN today, who confirmed that these videos violate C-SPAN copyright/trademark of the House proceedings.

"In addition to using pirated material, Speaker Pelosi also has used the pirated C-SPAN footage for partisan purposes," the release read. It also added that earlier this year, Pelosi had denied a C-SPAN request to use its own cameras for floor proceedings on the grounds that it didn't preserve the "the dignity and decorum" of the House.

"Is the dignity and decorum of the House preserved by pirating copyrighted C-SPAN material for political purposes?" the release asked.

But a couple hours later, the RSC sent out a second release saying it wanted to correct its error.

The earlier release "was based upon a conversation that RSC staff had with Barry Katz, the Manager of C-SPAN video assets. ... Bruce Collins, the corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN, called post-release and said that the information provided by the C-SPAN employee to the RSC was incorrect," reads the second statement.

"Given this contradictory information, the RSC wanted to be the first set the record straight and withdraw the information included in the release," the correction stated.

Prior to the error being announced, RSC Communications Director Brad Dayspring told FOX News the committee had been told that C-SPAN's copyright law had been violated because Pelosi had used the C-SPAN logo on her site. He said raw footage is available through an internal House feed to all members.

"We applaud (Pelosi's) efforts to get video on her Web site ... we can't applaud her breaking the law," he said.

He added that several congressional members had called his office after the initial release to determine whether they too had violated the law, but none of the sites he checked out had used C-SPAN's logo.

Daly said Pelosi's office had checked out the legality of using the footage before it was posted.

"Our legal counsel and C-SPAN's legal counsel have each independently determined that C-SPAN video posted on the speaker's blog is in the public domain and does not violate copyright law," he said.
----------

The AP on the same subject (emphasis mine)
--------------

WASHINGTON - Republicans quickly retracted a news release Thursday that accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of violating copyrights of C-SPAN, the cable channel that televises House and Senate proceedings.

The GOP took Pelosi to task because her new blog used video of this week's Iraq war debate, but then backtracked after learning C-SPAN had no copyright for the footage.

The Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members, contended in an afternoon news release that Pelosi's Web log violated copyright and trademark law by pirating "for partisan purposes" clips of members speaking on the House floor.

The clips, hosted by the popular video-sharing Web site YouTube, have C-SPAN's logo visible.

"As of noon today, the speaker had posted at least 16 videos that are copyrighted C-SPAN material from the House floor," according to the release from RSC spokesman Brad Dayspring. He cited an unnamed C-SPAN employee responsible for answering copyright questions from congressional employees.

Not so, said C-SPAN spokeswoman Jennifer Moire. The videos on Pelosi's blog, called The Gavel, came from the House chamber, where the footage is shot by cameras owned by Congress, not C-SPAN.

"That's in the public domain, it's owned by the American people," Moire said.

Dayspring retracted the release two hours after it went out, saying C-SPAN general counsel Bruce Collins had called the committee and said the information from the release was incorrect.

"The bottom line is, we were given contradictory information," Dayspring said in an interview. "We wanted to be clear that we are trying to operate where the facts are."

Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, said the GOP committee's initial release was "another baseless attack by Republicans."

In the six weeks since Pelosi, D-Calif., has been speaker, she has come under criticism by Republicans over how big a plane the government should provide for her use and over a minimum wage bill that excluded American Samoa from its provisions.

Pelosi said the wage measure will be modified to include Samoa. Republicans charged it was excluded from the bill because of a large tuna cannery there is owned by Del Monte Foods Co., which has its headquarters in Pelosi's San Francisco district.
--------

"Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, said the GOP committee's initial release was "another baseless attack by Republicans."

Brenden Daly like Piglosi is a punk ass liar.

"Bruce Collins, the corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN, called post-release and said that the information provided by the C-SPAN employee to the RSC was incorrect,"

So much for your "BASELESS ATTACK" schtik. Democrats will never stop lying , crying and destoying our Country. It's all they are capable of doing. It's time to assemble the firing squads.

"Fair Use" has a specific meaning and is not the same as "public domain". Jaku seems to be confused on this point.

An example from my years in media direction at the university level where I was the designated "copyright NAZI"...

Fair use allows you to use a percentage or portion of a copyrighted work for educational or journalistic purposes. You can quote a portion of a book, take a short excerpt from a movie, display a low resolution version of an ad on an educational website, etc. All of these are allowable.

Public Domain refers to something that is NOT copyrighted. A Mozart symphony for example.

If the C-Span material is copyrighted then it is not public domain and fair use can only apply if the material is being used in a manner allowed under the fair use guidelines. Promoting her own political agenda would not fall under fair use nor would the sheer volume of material being used fall under those guidelines even if the material wasn't being used for promotional purposes.

Now, if the material is copyrighted, Pelosi can use it given she has permission to do so. If she has received permission then no harm, no foul on her part. The problem then would be for C-SPAN since they have so jealously guarded this material in the past and now have seemingly decided to jump in Pelosi's bed.

What's more important to you? CSPAN's copyright or having video records of the Senate/House floor? Quite frightening if you think the former.
Posted by: jp2

I assume you have read the comments between this response and my orig comment. If you READ them, then educate yourself. In short the videos are already in the public domain.

That aside, do I think CSPAN's copyright, whether it fits this case or not, is important?

Damn right I do. And that covers everyone else that produces material that falls under copyright law.

Beeblebrox has also fairly characterized the distinction between "fair use" and "public domain".

However, much of the academic analysis is moot, considering the correction of the facts - the video was from Congressional cameras, and not CSPAN.

However, much of the academic analysis is moot, considering the correction of the facts - the video was from Congressional cameras, and not CSPAN.

That's all nice and good, but don't you think they'd be coming after a garden variety blogger if they posted 250+ of those videos? Remember they've got the C-SPAN trademarked logo all over them. In the linked mediavid case they had to specifically remove the C-SPAN logo not run afowl of the C-SPAN lawyers.

That's all nice and good, but don't you think they'd be coming after a garden variety blogger if they posted 250+ of those videos?

No.

Remember they've got the C-SPAN trademarked logo all over them.

And remember, it was a C-SPAN spokeswoman who said that the videos were in the public domain. Public domain is public domain. If you knowingly allow your logo to be used in public domain media, I suspect you have no foundation to object to its use.

Kevin:

In order to have a valid trademark infringement suit, the offending party must be commercially exploiting the mark. While most Internet related activity has been essentially labeled as "commercial in law", there is a plausible (if not reasonable) argument that Pelosi's usage of the CSPAN trademark is not a commercial use of the type entertained by the law, or even not a commercial use at all.

There are plausible arguments that Pelosi's site (and Pelosi's "profession") is commercial, but that would require a very expansive interpretation of what "commerce" includes under the Lanham Act.

It seems unlikely that the latter argument would prevail over the former - but stranger things have happened in a court.