Royal Family Bans Satirical Coverage Of The Big Wedding

from the they're-british,-right? dept

Thu, Apr 28th 2011 11:30am — Mike Masnick

You may have heard that there's some sort of big royal wedding going on in the UK in the near future. There's been a fair bit of press coverage about it all, apparently. And, of course, there will be even more coverage of the event itself. Down in Australia, comedy/satire troupe The Chaser boys had been planning to cover the wedding in their typically satirical manner, but the royal family has officially stated that video from the event may not be used for satire. Specifically, the rules are that the footage, which is being offered to a ton of TV stations, cannot be used "in any drama, comedy, satirical or similar entertainment program or content." And I thought the Brits liked satire...

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: royal family, wedding

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 10:59am

They do, but this is uncommon ground, a crwon prince marrying way down. IO mean honestly, there's no room for satire at all.

(Caution: the above may not be serious).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
william (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:03am

Hold on. Can you actually limit fair use by contract? I suppose the stations has signed a contract saying they won't do that, else they probably won't be allowed to broadcast this.

But how about a 3rd party taking the footage off the broadcast and do a non-commercial satire?

BTW, does the British has some law against making fun of the monarchy like in Thailand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:35am
  
  Re:
  Hold on. Can you actually limit fair use by contract? I suppose the stations has signed a contract saying they won't do that, else they probably won't be allowed to broadcast this.
  
  There's no fair use in the UK...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TheStupidOne, 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Lucky for us Yanks we can do all the satire we want to and the royals that we successfully rebelled against oh so long ago can't do a gosh darn thing about it.
    
    I'm inspired to provide some satirical coverage, but then I'd have to actually watch it. Plus I'm not nearly funny enough to get the attention it would deserve ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They have the same concept, it's just called "fair dealing" in the uk. Still smells as sweet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They have the same concept, it's just called "fair dealing" in the uk. Still smells as sweet.
      
      Significantly more limited than fair use...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well I know fair dealing in the U.K. is more limited than in the U.S., but it wouldn't help any if they called it "fair use" instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nebulon, 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  As far as I know there's no law against making fun of the monarchy, in fact in some parts of the UK it's encouraged. The UK is pretty open minded as far as satire goes, if you've ever seen Yes Minister or Have I Got News For You you'll know what I mean.
  
  As far as limiting the use of television footage there is precedent, the proceedings of the House of Commons were only televised on the grounds that the footage not be used for satire. Whether a third party could take this footage and then use it for a spoof as far as I know has never been tested but might make an interesting YouTube project for some enterprising soul. Be interesting to see them formulate a take down notice for that one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - athe (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 7:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Would you really want to take footage of the Queen and use it for a "spoof" though?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:43am

The video can't be used for comedy purposes, but any British taxpayer will laugh his pants off when he sees what this stupid wedding is costing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- william (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  don't you mean crying his pants off, and then realized that they had to sell that too to pay for the wedding?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 3:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, it's definitely laughing, considering that there are idiots paying to go.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:43am

Seems like that would be up to the taxpayers since they are funding the wedding.

The royal family and the whole british caste system is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huph, 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:48am

Daily Show/Colbert?
Does this mean that America's most-trusted news source won't be able to use any of the provided footage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re: Daily Show/Colbert?
  im sure Stewart will say somthing along the we had [insert video] but we cant do that cause "the royal family has officially stated that video from the event may not be used for satire."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:56am

Move along, folks...
There's nothing to satirize here.

"Two relative unknowns were wedded recently in an understated and sparsely attended ceremony open only to close friends and family. The new couple signed the marriage certificate at the courthouse before piling into their '87 Grand Prix to take a quick celebratory drive to the conference room of the nearest Days Inn for the reception.

A local DJ took requests before handing over the controls to the best man, who was both bigger and drunker than the unfortunate entertainer. Shortly after 9:30 pm, the new couple drifted off to their room while the best man wandered around trying in vain to a.) score some more drink tickets and b.) challenge various part members to an arm wrestling match.

Just a day like any other (give or take a wedding) in the lives of the British royals."

[Copies of the unedited wedding footage are available on Megaupload. Contains some swearing and adult situations. And about 10 minutes of the camera man trying to get his cat to play the piano.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:01pm

So is it fair game anywhere that isn't in the Commonwealth? I suddenly want to do a satire piece using clips from the royal wedding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg G (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:11pm

Monty Python
God, how I wish Monty Python was still around to do satire of this wedding.

And good luck telling the gang at SNL to not satirize it in their weekend update segment.

I hope Comedy Central didn't agree to that, or they'll miss out on a wealth of material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- trish, 28 Apr 2011 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: Monty Python
  they cant use video from the wedding, SNL can play their skits no problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:13pm

In unrelated news, SNL has canceled this Saturdays show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:13pm

I stumbled upon this last week.... prepare yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:20pm

Can someone educate me on the state of royalty in England?
Why is there still a king/queen/prince/princess in England? Do they have any role in government? Where do they get their money; is it inherited from centuries of rule? They need to be stripped of their crown and their finances and the money returned to the people.

The other thing I don't understand is why any American would be infatuated with England's royalty. We took this land from them 200+ years ago so why do we care about them now? I sure don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re: Can someone educate me on the state of royalty in England?
  Imagine how Canadians feel. The queen is officially our freaking head of state, even though she has nothing to do with our country at all anymore. And the royalists here are really serious about their support.
  
  But really that's a whole other can of worms...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nebulon82 (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: Can someone educate me on the state of royalty in England?
  Funding for the Royal Family comes in part from large estates (land) owned, most notably the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. This land is traditionally owned by the King/Queen and the current heir. In addition the civil list is a payment from the government but it doesn't really add up to that much (just under�8 million for 2010 according to Wikipedia, thats maybe $10 million I'm not sure), it's certainly way less than the two Duchies make.
  
  The Queen holds a ceremonial place in government, signing bills into law, opening Parliament etc. Technically she is still empowered to select a Prime Minister, but the reality on the ground is she picks whoever can command a majority in the House of Commons, so in effect the PM is chosen by elected MPs, not the Queen. The Queen also does a lot of diplomatic stuff as she is head of state, and don't forget all the time posing for pictures that end up on currency and stamps almost everywhere.
  
  I'm a republican (in the UK sense not the US) so I'm all for the dissolution of the monarchy, but as for stripping the wealth of the Crown it gets problematic as to who owns what? Dot he Duchies belong to the state or the royal family? Where do you draw the line in protecting private property? It would be a complicated issue should it ever arrise.
  
  It's probably not going to do so for the lifetime of the Queen as she's quite popular and seems to know what she's doing. If Charles were King it may be a different story given that he apparently doesn't understand that the best thing he can do to avoid provoking a constitutional crisis is to shut the hell up and stop interfering in things like agricultural policy and planning applications. Who knows, maybe the monarchy is unlikely to finish out the century, this is certainly my preference.
  
  As for why the US loves the royal family as much as it does, your guess is as good as mine. Might be some kind of reality TV/celbutard culture thing, might be the fact that the US is such a young country that the populace craves 'venerable' institutions.
  
  Either way, this whole wedding thing is a giant pain in the arse because most of the freaking shops will be shut tomorrow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hiiragi Kagami (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:26pm

I wonder...
... if the royal family asked "Are you being served?" when making the ridiculous request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:51pm

i hope to wake up after all this is over, the sight of seeing my cash on this crap bores the life out of me, freedom of information and all that so do as you please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:52pm

i hope to wake up after all this is over, the sight of seeing my cash on this crap bores the life out of me, freedom of information and all that so do as you please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umbrau44 (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:58pm

Using video is one of many ways to create satire. I'm sure not everyone will be limited by this. And who says you have to use their video?

Perhaps some enterprising soul will spend some time on xtranormal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scubloke, 28 Apr 2011 @ 1:14pm

The comedy/ satire troupe in question is not called 'The Chaser Boys'. I don't know if the actual troupe has a name, but they started out in the 90s publishing a satirical tabloid which was called 'The Chaser'. They have since done several TV series/ specials called 'The Chaser does...(Insert topic here)". Previous exploits include penetrating security at an APEC meeting by posing as the Canadian delegation, even though Canada is not part of APEC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 1:40pm

speaking of satire
Kevin Smith and Jason Mewes are going to do a live commentary. Starts at 10am UK time!
http://www.ustream.tv/jayandsilentbob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trish, 28 Apr 2011 @ 2:03pm

so. fed. up. of hearing it.
I wish they would ban all coverage. All mention of it. What's with royalty anyway? is it still 1492?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 2:26pm

Ahh the brits they complain about us being gun nuts and yet they still have kings and queens. Maybe if you had as many guns as we have do, you could get rid of them huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 2:28pm

the reason given is that it is a religious ceremony. Not that that matters much these days. As to liking satire the royal family actually like satire spitting image for example.Now i think of it did they not do a royal command performance or meet the queen. and before i get yelled at i will state i would like this country to be a republic not a monarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic, 28 Apr 2011 @ 3:24pm

DO we have an Anglo-Australian war in making?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2011 @ 4:52pm

You can't stop Brits from making fun of stuff. That's what we do.
The fact that they've actually told us we're not allowed to, well, I think this will work as well as the superinjunctions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wes (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 12:57am

They do realize...
...that we don't have to do what they say, right? I mean it's going to happen. Telling people not to do it simply guarantees that it will happen MORE. If they then attempt to remove the satire videos, they will only succeed in driving even more traffic to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
midofo (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 1:21am

But they aren't English
perhaps the royals wouldn't mind the satire if they were english, but the crown's hereditary side is german (proper surname Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and prince philip is greek.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Publius (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 6:58am

The footage of the wedding isn't necessary where coverage is invovled. I think of it a great template where some of the UK's sharpest male comics can squeeze themselves into a reasonable facsimile of that dress and put on a performance that will make everyone laugh.

Never underestimate the great tradition of British drag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leon, 29 Apr 2011 @ 11:45am

royals suck royally
the wedding will be a joke--beyond satire anyway. Screw the inbreeding (inbred) toadies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]