Judge Rules That Inglewood, California Cannot Copyright Public Videos 67
UnknowingFool writes: Recently a judge ruled in California that the city of Inglewood cannot hold copyrights of videos of public city council meetings which they published on their YouTube account and thus cannot sue individuals for copyright infringement for using them. In several YouTube videos, Joseph Teixeira, a resident of Inglewood, California, criticized the mayor, James Butts. Under the account name Dehol Truth, Teixeira took city council meetings posted on their YouTube account and edited them to make pointed criticisms about the mayor.
The city responded by registering the videos with copyrights and then suing Teixeira for copyright infringement. Many would say it was a thinly veiled attempt to silence a critic. Teixeira filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) the city cannot claim copyright over public records (videos of public city council meetings) and (2) even if they could, his videos fell under Fair Use.
Unsurprisingly, a judge dismissed the city's case, citing California law which bars the city from holding copyrights on most public records. (This case may not be over as Teixeira's pro bono lawyer has not filed for attorney's fees. The ruling can be found here.) What is notable is that the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, so the city cannot refile. Normally judges do not do this unless they feel that the plaintiff's case was so weak that he feels no judge should hear the case ever again. Since the judge agreed with the defendant on the first point, he would not normally need to address Teixeira's Fair Use defense, but he did anyway. Anticipating that the city may appeal his decision, judge ruled that Teixeira's videos substantially met all four factors for Fair Use:
The city responded by registering the videos with copyrights and then suing Teixeira for copyright infringement. Many would say it was a thinly veiled attempt to silence a critic. Teixeira filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) the city cannot claim copyright over public records (videos of public city council meetings) and (2) even if they could, his videos fell under Fair Use.
Unsurprisingly, a judge dismissed the city's case, citing California law which bars the city from holding copyrights on most public records. (This case may not be over as Teixeira's pro bono lawyer has not filed for attorney's fees. The ruling can be found here.) What is notable is that the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, so the city cannot refile. Normally judges do not do this unless they feel that the plaintiff's case was so weak that he feels no judge should hear the case ever again. Since the judge agreed with the defendant on the first point, he would not normally need to address Teixeira's Fair Use defense, but he did anyway. Anticipating that the city may appeal his decision, judge ruled that Teixeira's videos substantially met all four factors for Fair Use:
- There is no evidence Teixeira used the videos for commercial gain and was transformative
- His work was creative by adding music and commentary to the normally boring council videos
- Despite the city's claim he used their "entire work", it clear that he only used portions of meetings that lasted as long as four hours editing them down to a max of 15 minutes.
- Teixeira did not harm the city's market for the videos because the city is barred by state law from recouping more than direct costs of duplication. Even if the city could sell the videos (which they published themselves for free on YouTube), his short videos are not a substitute.
Re:Why are we fighting the government? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, your way of thinking is: "I don't understand! Must kill!"
Makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm remarking on the fact that the city even tried to copyright the videos in the first place. Why do they even think it's their place to do that?
humans act like humans and you're surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why are we fighting the government? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Teixeira had bankrupted himself in a quixotic attempt to court rein in an out-of-control executive, this would not be news and we would not be discussing it. It would be like "Dog bites postman."
However, Teixeira did prevail. In a functioning system this would not be news. But our system is misfunctional, making this "Postman bites dog" news. We are reading about and discussing it precisely because it is so unusual and contrary to our perverted expectations.
So we are reminded that it is our bounden duty to show solidarity and cut down the establishment.
Oh, and the officials responsible should be paying the costs, personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One term. (Score:5, Interesting)
In Florida you have a high turnover rate because of ridiculous term limits and because of that you get a lot of amateurs running the government who know they aren't going to be holding the office for long so they set up some nice opportunities for themselves and their friends before they go. It's a nightmare.
Sure, some term limits are reasonable. You don't want executive positions in populous areas to be able to stay indefinitely, but often rural areas have a very small number of qualified people and that makes it almost impossible to have decent government when there are only two qualified people in town to be the town chair.
Simple answers to complex problems often do a lot of harm when applied to social constructs.
I love that the judge ruled so thoroughly and swiftly. Can you imagine single term limits for judges? In many states judges have to run for office.
Elected judges (Score:1)
Can you imagine single term limits for judges? In many states judges have to run for office.
I've never really understood the point of judges running for office. Oh I get that in theory it has some virtues but in practice it is a futile and corrupted idea. Virtually no one other than a handful of lawyers has even a vague clue who these people are or whether they are qualified for their job. I have never once voted in an election when I had even heard the name of any of the people running for judge. I have no idea who they are, what their background is or whether they might conceivably do a good
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find it too terribly bad, at least in my area.
Of course, in my area it's not choosing between Judge X and Judge Y. It's 'Do you wish for Judge X to remain seated for another 4 years'?
It takes a lot for the judge to lose this vote, but they have in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
When you have term limits you get self serving politicians like they have in Florida.
When you have no term limits you get politicians whose only goal is to get re-elected.
Re:One term. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but is that better or worse than politicians whose only goal is to extract as much money/power/etc from the system in the term they do get, and who cares if it all falls apart next year when they are banned from being in office anyway.
Or you could be a bit more practical and also consider the non-extreme cases as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but is that better or worse than politicians whose only goal is to extract as much money/power/etc from the system in the term they do get, and who cares if it all falls apart next year when they are banned from being in office anyway.
Or you could be a bit more practical and also consider the non-extreme cases as well.
Is that how the office of the President of the United States works?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is two terms to balance the competing advantages and disadvantages of short term and long term politicians. Rather than the "one term" being suggested here.
Re: (Score:1)
No term limits. Just forbid incumbents. You can run and get elected as many times as you (and the fools you convince to vote for you) would like. You just can't do it consecutively.
This is to give people a taste of a rival's way of doing things every few years. The "first one is free" to hook you. You may not even want to go back to the old way afterward, making the re-runner change his ways or face a (probably permanent) loss.
And then shorten terms to make sure that people remember what the previous guy di
Re: (Score:3)
No term limits. Just forbid incumbents.
What a boon for the wealthy! Every four years you get a fresh new politician with no influence, and no power. It makes racketeering and extortion so much easier.
Re: (Score:2)
One could easily argue the opposite. By allowing the advantages of incumbency to become entrenched, we encourage corporatism. If the same guy is Mayor of Atlanta for 26 years, it is pretty easy for major contractors to know who to bribe and to set up systems for ensuring that their man stays in office. If they have to keep corrupting a new guy every 4 years, it would be that much tougher.
Both arguments likely have some truth. If every guy in office is a noob, then the bureaucrats will of necessity becom
Woah (Score:5, Insightful)
A dose of common sense. I nearly fainted.
Re: (Score:2)
But then again they are just salaried government employees, so why do they care?
Fixed that for you.
But actually, the District Attorney is an elected official.
Re: (Score:1)
But then again they are just salaried government employees, so why do they care?
Fixed that for you.
But actually, the District Attorney is an elected official.
Does a District Attorney act as general counsel? I thought DAs dealt with criminal prosecutions, not civil matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought DAs dealt with criminal prosecutions, not civil matters.
Huh, so it does.
Does a District Attorney act as general counsel?
My state's Attorney General issues opinions to the state Executive and Legislature on both civil and criminal matters, so I assumed -- shame on me -- that local DAs did the same for their levels of government.
And the Mayor *should* have asked the DA for an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't necessarily blame the GC on this. It might have been he did warn the Mayor and other Council members that it was a fools errand, and was told to pursue it anyway. Without knowing anything else, I would suggest that this is exactly what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to #suddenoutbreakofcommonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
We are missing the nugget of gold from this story (Score:1)
The mayor's name is James Butts.
Re: (Score:3)
A Democrat, and in 2005, Inglewood was ranked as the 7th most liberal city in the nation.
The butt of the Earth (Score:1)
2Pac was right (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
system failure (Score:2)
Whether corrupt police, incompetent city government, school principals, etc, when did these kinds of people start getting elected to important public service roles?
Or is it just that now we have more access to tools to expose their idiocy and it seems there are more of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Because thoughtful, considerate, respectful candidates are butchered by politicians and cronies and called all sorts of evil names simply because they have a different take on things. This is how it has always been. Which is why political power should be limited.
Re: (Score:2)
What is it with this BS fantasy? (Score:1)
"in private industry where they would actually be judged by the results they produce". Where the fuck does this BS fantasy come from?
Current events give a classic example of how this claim is complete bollocks: Donald Trump.
See also the private banking industry.
Reporting (Score:2)
Or is it just that now we have more access to tools to expose their idiocy and it seems there are more of them?
With social media and sites like Slashdot we hear about every stupid move any public official makes. In times past such information would only be available to people in the local area. It is the same with stranger abductions [washingtonpost.com]. The rate of stranger abductions has gone down but the perception is that it has gone up due to the number of reports on the news.
The worst thing that is happening is the "the" meme. Too often I see "the government", "the police", "the school system", etc. All of these are made up by th
Stay Classy California. (Score:2)
yes yes... the judge shut it down... but lets be real, the judges are generally pretty good about that. The nonsense in teh north east about "its illegal to film police officers" got shut down by the courts as well... repeatedly. That didn't stop the police and the mayors from trying to enforce it anyway.
And the simple fact that they'd try to do such a thing is despicable. The inglewood government is clearly corrupt.
I think something needs to be done to increase public participation in local government. Mak
Re: (Score:2)
And... in the north east they beat you and tell you that if you film them you'll go to jail.
twat.
Do you HONESTLY think the police in Baltimore and Philadelphia are a kinder and gentler police officer than what we have out here in Los Angeles? Think again, chump.
Is video recording required? (Score:2)
If the city is not required to video their meetings and they have the authority to prohibit video cameras in council chambers, don't be surprised if future meetings are not recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't know if they have the authority to prohibit cameras in public meetings. This has been something of a hot topic - there are activists who go to public meetings for the sole purpose of auditing their freedom to record the proceedings. Kind of a weird hobby, but someone needs to act as the 4th estate.
Re: (Score:2)
Crowdsource funding for countersuite? (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Wording (Score:2)
Is a dismissal a ruling?
Re: (Score:1)
There goes the incentive (Score:2)
Without copyright, there's no reason for them to keep having city council meetings. I hope you pirates are happy with the literal anarchy you've caused!