Re: MLK case

[I'm taking these questions out of order]

Ruth H. Dukelow <dukelow[_at_]mlc.lib.mi.us> writes:
>
> If the TV and radio stations cannot claim copyright, can the individual
> speakers claim copyright if they themselves have not fixed their works?

No, fixation is a requirement for copyright protection.

> At the end of TV and radio news broadcasts, the stations usually claim
> copyright in the content of their news programs. If someone were to
> tape the speeches and interviews of public figures (such as MLK) and
> make those tapes available to the public (in libraries or through the
> Internet), would the TV and radio stations be able to claim copyright
> infringement?

I assume you're talking about an individual doing his/her own taping of the event and not just recording the nightly news produced by a commercial station. In this case, the individual has copyright protection in his/her own creation (to the extent that the work can be copyrighted and copyrighted by that individual). The station's copyright is only in the work it has just aired -- a compilation of pre-recorded and live (scripted) events which the station has assembled and presented (and simultaneously recorded). The station also holds copyright or license in most of the pre-recorded events, such as the interview with the politician and the bumper music at the end of a segment. So if the individual chooses to turn his/her material over to the local library, it doesn't impact on the media's copyrights in their own programs. However, if the individual tapes the newscast (or any show) off-air and gives that material away, there most likely will be copyright infringment disputes. Most libraries are away of this and don't accept such materials.

> If the media is only recording an extemporaneous speech, I would argue
> that the speaker would be the one to claim copyright.

I disagree, but we've discussed this thread before. Remember that the media just don't appear -- they are almost always invited. This implies at least a tacit agreement on the part of the speaker to release whatever interest he/she has in the speech to whoever records it in exchange for getting the message out to the public. MLK did not intend to enforce in the future whatever copyright protection he might have claimed when he stood up in front of the entire country and gave the "I have a dream" speech.

Note: if the speaker is a public official operating in the line of duty, the speech automatically falls into the public domain (yes, there are a few exceptions). Also, if the speaker is creating a work for hire, the copyright falls to the employer.

> But, what if the media representative asked questions (i.e., conducted
> an interview of the speaker) to elicit and guide responses? Can the
> radio station or TV station then claim copyright protection to the
> entire interview, including the speaker's comments?

Same as above.

I've never seen or heard of anyone suing a station for violation of copyright based on what that person said voluntarily in front of the station's cameras and mikes. What they usually sue for is defamation, based on the way a piece was edited (statement taken out of context or juxtaposed against another statement to imply something beyond what was meant).

I'm wondering if what we need to discuss is the difference between between random sounds/actions (speech) and a fixed expression of an idea. Is all speech the expression of an idea? Of course not (all political jokes aside). When does speech become an idea? What's the role of commercialization in relationship to an idea? Any professors want to tackle this?

Jayne Sebby
Nebraska ETV
jsebby[_at_]unlinfo.unl.edu Received on Wed Jul 29 1998 - 16:29:32 GMT