Bush appointee Christie rips off Monty Python in NJ gov race

[GePap]

It's a bit more complicated. In the context of a political campaign, using work of others may constitute a "fair use", depending on the circumstances. In this case, it is being used to make a political point, the material used is a small portion, and it isn't going to hurt the market for Monty Python. It seems like it may pass fair use muster if litigated.

While the use is political in nature, it is being used expressly as part of a political campaign, and while the bit of the clip used is supposed to parody the opposing candidate, it is still a campaign add. I think it that sense, it is closer to commercial use than non-for profit or educational use. The add is after all trying to "sell" a specific candidate.

[Ramo]

I'm not a Christie fan (and think that Corzine is doing a half decent job, all things considered), but why should anyone give a ****?

[notyoueither]

What can you sue for? There's no revenue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As you point out, there's no such case to point to, successful or not. So if you think they would pass fair use, please share your reasoning. My contention would be that, if it passes fair use, some politician, somewhere, would stand up for it. Create a test case to establish precedent, perhaps. But it hasn't happened, so I can only assume that this does not constitute fair use.

Uh... perhaps you are not sure how these things work, but a politician can't sue to use a song. The only way for a "test case" would be if an artist decided to sue. IIRC, even though Petty threatened to sue, Dubya refused to stop using the song.

Right now there was an interesting case Browne v. McCain. Last I heard, the Central District of California judge refused the Republican Party's motion for summary judgment on fair use doctrine (and California's anti-SLAPP law). I believe it was settled though after the ruling against summary judgment, so it never went trial.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think I also read somewhere that under this idea of copyrights applying wholly to campaign ads, CBS tried to prevent McCain from using debate clips in his ads. If artists have copyright power over their clips, wouldn't news programs have them over their debate clips?

[GePap]

I think I also read somewhere that under this idea of copyrights applying wholly to campaign ads, CBS tried to prevent McCain from using debate clips in his ads. If artists have copyright power over their clips, wouldn't news programs have them over their debate clips?

How is a political debate copyrightable? Yes, a network produced it, but the intent was to give airtime to candidates to allow them to voice their political viewpoints. There was no script, there isn't supposed to be any editing - the most artistry I can think of is the placement of camera angles, so under what guise could CBS claim that the content from a debate is their property?

But I do think that trying to put clearly copyrightable materials in a paid campaign ad for or against a specific candidate would be different than using them for political parody or satire.

[Imran Siddiqui]

under what guise could CBS claim that the content from a debate is their property?

It's their cameras and production. After all, you couldn't just take it and resell it, could you?

[Kuciwalker]

While the use is political in nature, it is being used expressly as part of a political campaign, and while the bit of the clip used is supposed to parody the opposing candidate, it is still a campaign add. I think it that sense, it is closer to commercial use than non-for profit or educational use. The add is after all trying to "sell" a specific candidate.

Which actually throws it firmly in the arena of political speech, the most heavily protected class.

[Kuciwalker]

How is a political debate copyrightable?

Video of said debate is copyrightable, obviously.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, does that mean that I can tape sketches on SNL making fun of my opponent and reair them without the permission of NBC?

I don't know the precise balancing test the Supreme Court uses. I do know that JRabbit's "he stole, end of story" position is wrong.

Of course, if it were up to me, I would give the broadest possible leeway to the campaign.

[GePap]

Which actually throws it firmly in the arena of political speech, the most heavily protected class.

Political ADS are not equivalent to various other forms of political speech - they are very heavily regulated, and in some ways are akin more to commerical speech, as I said. They are selling a candidacy as much as supporting any one political idea.

[GePap]

under what guise could CBS claim that the content from a debate is their property?

It's their cameras and production. After all, you couldn't just take it and resell it, could you?

Couldn't I? Have there been any court rulings?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Political ADS are not equivalent to various other forms of political speech - they are very heavily regulated, and in some ways are akin more to commerical speech, as I said. They are selling a candidacy as much as supporting any one political idea.

Uh, what?!!!

Since when have campaign ads not been deemed as political speech?!

[GePap]

Uh, what?!!!

Since when have campaign ads not been deemed as political speech?!

Not all political speech is the same, anymore than all commercial speech is the same. Just saying that a political ad is political speech resolves nothing. I think the given purpose of a candidates ad makes it different from say an ad that did not mention any specific campaign. Campaign finance law seems to make the very same distinction. In this case, this is the Christie Campaign producing this ad, not some non-for-profit organization.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just saying that a political ad is political speech resolves nothing

It resolves far more than you think it does. As in, it isn't akin to commercial speech according to First Amendment law. When things become considered political speech, they get far more protection. See, for example, Buckley v. Valeo.