Fox Paid $60k For Video Footage Of Madoff On A Yacht... And Still Gets Sued For Copyright Infringement
from the fair-use-anyone? dept
JJ sends in the news that Fox News apparently paid some guy $60,000 for some video footage he took of Bernie Madoff on a yacht in 2003 for use on Fox News and Fox Business, and the guy is now suing Fox for more. Specifically, the guy licensed the work for 45 days for $10,000. After that period ended and Fox was still using the video, the guy sent a cease & desist, and Fox paid him another $50,000 for a bit over another month. Once that ended, Fox was still using the video, and the guy sued, demanding at least another $500,000. First of all... $60,000 for the use of a single video of Bernie Madoff on a yacht for ~90 days of usage? Damn.But, separate from that, I would think that, even though it licensed the video originally, Fox could make a decent fair use argument, claiming that the video was for reporting purposes. On top of that, the guy is demanding to know how much ad revenue Fox brought in from certain advertisers, as if the video alone drove the ad revenue. Still, it seems odd that Fox would license video for news purposes for a limited time only. Does anyone really think it's still possible to put video online for just a limited time?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bernie madoff, copyright, fair use, news reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah but...
That might make sense, but I would imagine that the licensee's(sp?) exhibit A and B would be payment agreement 1 and 2.
Hard for Fox to license twice and THEN claim fair use, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the point
No, of course not. More people to sue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless they waived their fair use rights at the time, your argument is... what's the word? It'll come to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, they are screwed because they paid for licensing, the AC is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How so? Paying does not equal to admission of legitimacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, an exemplary bit of reasoning about how they've "dug their own hole"; or "made their own bed."
Yes, quite; exactly the point.
Now if only the phrasing and diction of the preceding statement were laudable.... Oh well. C'est la vie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use? WTF?
Since Fox agrees, it should be using this video for Y days. Anything else is contract violation, isn't it?
Or you mean they should just break into guy's house in a first place, since they need it "for reporting", which is "fair use"?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limited time
I think Techdirt's server support this new feature called "deletion"? I'm guessing that Fox's server can do it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
advertisers
Well, I'm pretty sure that when a station gets a big scoop they reach out to their best advertisers to get them to pay more to have their ads be shown during that segment. I don't know if this video and the use Fox made of it rises to the level of scoop-ness where this would happen, but it's a legitimate question to ask if you're going to shakedown Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just seems ludicrous that I can videotape someone else doing same random act and then claim a copyright on it. How does me videotaping my neighbor mowing his law "promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about greedy. I'd be ecstatic to be paid five figures for a couple of minutes of video footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60Gs, Damn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing stupid about it; it's basic contract law
Nothing immoral, unethical, or 'bad' about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing stupid about it; it's basic contract law
13. Stadt immediately forwarded Fox a "Cease and Desist Letter".
14. After receipt of the "Cease and Desist Letter", Fox acknowledged its continued use of the Video in breach of the License Agreement.
15-16. Fox re-ups a legal agreement to pay Stadt for use of his video for x days, etc., pays him again.
17. Fox again uses the video beyond the paid-for, legally agreed upon window, etc.
18+: Lawsuit ahoy.
If this is true, this is super cut-and-dried. It sounds like super basic breach of contract stuff, here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing stupid about it; it's basic contract law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing stupid about it; it's basic contract law
I can see why they're asking for that info, to set a target for damages. That's not exactly out of the ordinary, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the Ball but off base
On the ball because he's actively pursuing his contract and the obligations of it. It may appear to be STUPID on Fox's part but that doesn't make this guy a fool by any means nor does it negate his rights.
Go for it.
Show how insanely stupid current copyright ENFORCEMENT is and let's slay this dragon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exclusive rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should be applauding the guy...
Heck, he should have put DRM on it when he delivered it to them...
Maybe he should get the police to raid Fox studios and take all their computer equipment, just in case it's infringing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the first day they released the video, they may have done this, but probably not since. News like this (not news in general, don't get exicted) is only profitable on TV (I'm not talking about the internet...) for the first day or two after it breaks, then people get pissed off about seeing it. It doesn't float around on TV on the same program for very long before it's considered dead.
I would doubt at all if Fox had any revenue to show for it ON TV, after the first couple days.
My guess is it's an internet thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox fuxed up
Regardless of whether or not it's ethical or reasonable to charge for the footage in the first place, Fox agreed to said charge, and a rather silly contract. Then they breached the contract in a fairly forgivable way (probably easy for someone to forget they'd only loaned rather than bought the footage) and the guy reacted fairly reasonably, all considered (he didn't immediately sue, he just said "hey, wait a minute") and got paid again for another short term license, which fox agreed to *again*.
And then they go and mess up again, so the guy sues. It might be greedy, petty and ethically dubious, but he's well within his legal rights. It's fox's fault for agreeing to such a stupid contract, twice, and then breaching the contract. Twice.
Plus can anyone here honestly say that, given the chance, they *wouldn't* squeeze fox news for all the money you could? I would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep that's a lot of cash, too much for a video. At the same time that is apparently what the market is willing to pay, capitalism at work. This video is a perfect example of the limited monopoly that copyright should be but is not. Basically no one cares about the video, this guy will never license it again (not that he'll need to), the value of the monopoly is transient but the copyright is not. Nonetheless I'm sure this dude will pursue and have taken down any copies available on the net. Copyright lasts way too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusion about fair use
The "fair use" exception the news media has is to use an *excerpt* of the works for the purpose of commenting on the work itself (not what it portrays) such as an excerpt of a book in a book review, and excerpt of a movie in a movie review, a copy of a photo when talking about a photo gallery exhibition. Parody and satire also fall into this category - they can copy a work to parody it.
If I take a photo of a famous personality and exhibit it in a gallery exhibition the news media can use a copy of that photo (without paying, without licensing it) for the purposes of discussing the exhibition and that is fair use. However, if they want to use a copy of that photo for the purposes of talking about the celebrity they need to negotiate with me or my agent to license it. That's what Faux did for the Madoff video, and they have absolutely no "fair use" right to use the video (as news about Madoff) outside the terms of their license contract.
There is also apparently some confusion due to how model releases work. The news media has a "fair use" exemption to a person's right to control their own image and name, but only for the purpose of news reporting. If Fox wanted to use that video to advertise yacht sales (a commercial use) and the copyright owner licensed them to use it in that way, Madoff would have a right to block that use as (presumably) he hasn't signed a model release authorizing his image to be used in that way. However Madoff has no such rights when it comes to the news media using the video as news about Madoff. This right to control one's own image is separate from copyright. I can take a photo of a celebrity and then license it with a creative commons license that allows anyone to use it for free without paying or negotiating a license with me (the copyright holder), but the celebrity's rights to control their image will still apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]