Bush appointee Christie rips off Monty Python in NJ gov race

[Lorizael]

Causes such as?

Where have I ever argued that taxes should be collected to fund the causes I support?

Unless the 'military' is a cause, and even there, I argue it would be better for Canada to simply cut the US a cheque every year.

So you support the United States building and maintaining its military with tax revenue?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you support the United States building and maintaining its military with tax revenue?

I see national defense as one of the valid roles for a federal government.

[Lorizael]

I see national defense as one of the valid roles for a federal government.

Well, New Jersey has an Army National Guard funded through the state's Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs. So if you prevent the New Jersey state government from collecting more tax revenue, you're endangering the lives of brave young men and women fighting overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm unsurprised but still saddened to see this thread devolve into partisan politics. I don't care one whit about the governor's race in New Jersey. The simple fact is, a politician has appropriated copyrighted IP for a campaign commercial -- and put it on local, cable and national TV. No permission was sought. That is outright thievery.

Sorry, not that simple. The pesky First Amendment gets in the way.

In fact, the Pythons have a responsibility to themselves to complain. If you blindly ignore the misappropriation of your materials, you are open to claims that you allowed them to become public domain.

I don't believe this is true either. It's a part of trademark law, but I'm pretty sure it's not part of copyright law, and won't believe it without a cite.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, New Jersey has an Army National Guard funded through the state's Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs. So if you prevent the New Jersey state government from collecting more tax revenue, you're endangering the lives of brave young men and women fighting overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess then that NJ spends their tax dollars on nothing but the Army National Guard. That's an awful lot of money.

[-Jrabbit]

So you are *****ing that the republicans did the honourable thing? They may have thought, that the Pythons wouldn't mind the use of their material. Pythons spoke up, he pulled it down. End of story. This is the way the relationship is supposed to work. You should be hailing the Christie campaign for doing the right thing.

This simple-minded defense of the guilty, caught red-handed, is simply amazing. The campaign did the ILLEGAL thing. There was no "relationship" and there was nothing honorable in their CYA actions. They are not to be congratulated in any way. If you steal something, an apology does not pardon your thievery.

Kuci -- Politicians do not have a first-amendment right to steal, and this cannot be construed as "fir use." Regarding your second point, I admit to being no legal expert, but have IMHO a decent working knowlege of the rights and responsibilities involved on both sides of this issue. I'm sure one of Poly lawyers can clarify and will call me out if I'm out of bounds.

[Ben Kenobi]

This simple-minded defense of the guilty, caught red-handed, is simply amazing. The campaign did the ILLEGAL thing. There was no "relationship" and there was nothing honorable in their CYA actions. They are not to be congratulated in any way. If you steal something, an apology does not pardon your thievery.

If you return what you stole, yes it does pardon your theivery. WRT to IP, taking down the improper use is how the system is supposed to work. You've yet to show that the Republicans deliberately attempted to 'steal' Python work. From what I can see, there was no confusion that they were using Python work. What the Python's objected to is it's use in the campaign, and how it could be construed as an endorsment.

Again, Christie did the honourable thing when appraised of the Python disapproval and took it down.

Kuci -- Politicians do not have a first-amendment right to steal, and this cannot be construed as "fir use." Regarding your second point, I admit to being no legal expert, but have IMHO a decent working knowlege of the rights and responsibilities involved on both sides of this issue. I'm sure one of Poly lawyers can clarify and will call me out if I'm out of bounds.

JRabbit, I suggest not relying on HuffPo. You'd have way more credibility if you weren't quoting this piece.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci -- Politicians do not have a first-amendment right to steal, and this cannot be construed as "fair use."

Politicians - and in fact all people - have a a very strongly protected right to political speech, even when that speech might involve violations of copyright. The First Amendment strictly supersedes Article 1 Section 8.

[KrazyHorse]

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

[GePap]

Kuci -- Politicians do not have a first-amendment right to steal, and this cannot be construed as "fair use."

Politicians - and in fact all people - have a a very strongly protected right to political speech, even when that speech might involve violations of copyright. The First Amendment strictly supersedes Article 1 Section 8.

Christie could have made the same point not using material that he had no rights to use -the fact that he apologized quickly and took everything down would indicate that he knows he screwed up. The most charitable explination, and the most likely, is that whomever put this ad together did not know they had to get the rights to that specific material.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[-Jrabbit]

I call BS, Ben. And a very weak counter-troll.

If you return what you stole, yes it does pardon your theivery.

WTF! Go steal something, Ben. Get caught. Then apologize and give it back. See what the judge says regarding the technical fact of your guilt.

You've yet to show that the Republicans deliberately attempted to 'steal' Python work. From

I didn't say ANYTHING about "the Republicans" and the commercial's existence is self-evident proof that wrong was done. Doesn't matter who did it. When you conceptualize and write a pointed commercial, find broadcast-quality video footage, edit it, add Chyron and voiceover, then buy airtime for the commercial and post it on Youtube and your website -- yes, it's "deliberate."

The most charitable explination, and the most likely, is that whomever put this ad together did not know they had to get the rights to that specific material.

Even the campaign (to my knowledge) has made no such claim. No one who puts together real commercials in the real world is unaware of copyright infringement. And you can bet that this is not the candidate's Uncle Joe, but more likely a well-paid media consultant. This is a major-market governor's race. There are no "oopsies" involved.

Again, Christie did the honourable thing when appraised of the Python disapproval and took it down.

Again, there is no honor involved. He covered his ass, plain and simple, when apprised of the threat of a lawsuit.
-------
BTW Imran, if you really think this passes fair use under litigation, how did all those songs being played at campaign rallies fail??
-------
Ben -- HuffPo was the only place left with the video. Are you saying the video is inaccurate? As I've already said, I could care less about the politics of New Jersey. But the fact that the candidate involved is a mob-connected, Bush-appointed attorney general certainly makes it juicier -- even if it constantly distracts you away from the actual point.

[Cort Haus]

ecstacy

A truth drug and a sex drug in one handy package.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW Imran, if you really think this passes fair use under litigation, how did all those songs being played at campaign rallies fail??

Fail what? In most cases the singer requested the song not be used. Springsteen asked Reagan to stop using "Born in the U.S.A.". Dubya used "I Won't Back Down" and Tom Petty threatened to sue (but didn't).

I'm not aware of a single successful (or even unsuccessful for that matter) suit on a campaign song actually succeeding.

[-Jrabbit]

Fail what? In most cases the singer requested the song not be used. Springsteen asked Reagan to stop using "Born in the U.S.A.". Dubya used "I Won't Back Down" and Tom Petty threatened to sue (but didn't).

I'm not aware of a single successful (or even unsuccessful for that matter) suit on a campaign song actually succeeding.

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.