Fox News Doesn’t Like Blog People
Update 3: After a few emails with Alice Kalthoff I elected to pull the embed code from my site. The exchanges were pleasant, after all, the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. The principle I opted to take a stand on in this case was not giving a hard time to someone with a job to do, who has, based on exchanges, had a very long day already. That’s just the way I roll.
Update 2: Breitbart TV has analysis featuring the full clip here.
Update: I emailed back for clarification as I have not saved the video, or a still shot. I am only hosting a YouTube clip which has apparently been taken down. I informed Fox I would take action on my end if required; however, I honestly am not sure who is violating the copyright here – my blog, or You Tube? If it’s me, of course, I’ll be happy to comply.
The email speaks for itself. I guess their anti-gun anchor was getting too much pub. Last I checked it was one of the most watched News/politics clips on You Tube for the day.
To Whom It May Concern,
You are in violation of copyright law. A property featured on your site contains video, logos, audio, text, images, likeness, or content that you do not own.
You are notified to please immediately remove the video entitled "Senior Reduced To Tears By Reporter After Shooting” with the URL http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/10/senior-reduced-.html. The host site has removed the video, but a still frame from the video remains on your site.
Further unauthorized use of video, logos, audio, text, images, likeness, or content of FOX 4, myfoxdfw.com, KDFW, or KDFW-TV can result in legal action.
If you have questions you can contact myself or the myFOXdfw web staff at website@kdfwfox4.com.
Alice Kalthoff
Web Producer
KDFW FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth
xxx.xxx.xxxx
Dan, they have temporarily disabled their contact page, so it is not possible to send them any more “fan mail”. I did get one or two comments in before they cut us off. Pathetic is the word that best describes these yahoos.
Fair Use.
Dan, unless the actual URL of the ‘still frame’ was from your domain, you didn’t do anything. The URL they sent above is .html, obviously not an image URL.
In all likelihood you used the normal embed code from YouTube, and while they may have removed the video, the image may have still appeared for a while for a variety of possible reasons.
Anyway, you didn’t do anything more than essentially link to a video on YouTube. And as for YouTube, I have a hard time believing they even had to pull it down, but I don’t know how station charters work and the whole public good thing.
Actually, Breitbart is making the “fair use” play.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6905
By the way, that is not a properly formatted DMCA takedown notice, so you can ignore it. There is a very specific set of required information for a takedown.
Obviously “fair use” as this is criticism.
But they know that. This is just intimidation.
The station deserves only two words: “Screw you.”
Not Quite Down The Memory Hole Yet
At the moment, despite the thuggish efforts of KDFW’s management, disgraced MSM journalist Rebecca Aguilar’s driveby hit on an innocent elderly business owner is still online here. And that footage is incorporated into this segment of Breitbart.TV, fea…
Not Quite Down The Memory Hole Yet
At the moment, despite the thuggish efforts of KDFW’s management, disgraced MSM journalist Rebecca Aguilar’s driveby hit on an innocent elderly business owner is still online here. And that footage is incorporated into this segment of Breitbart.TV, fea…
I would re-label thaqt as Fox 4 News Doesn’t Like Blog People. WHile they are owned by the same overall company, they are in a different division from the Fox News cable company. This is why they have to put the channel number between the Fox and News in their broadcast, rather than calling themselves Fox News 4.
If, for example, Roger Ailes decided that Aguilar was an embarassment to the Fox name, he could not order her firing. He could only suggest it to his bosses at Fox Entertainment Group and they could order it through Fox Broadcast, which owns KDFW.
Don’t go telling half-truths, like Aguilar did in her report.
Can someone in the Dallas area inform us what businesses pay for advertising on the KDFW news shows, so that those of us who do not live in the Dallas area can write appropriate letters to the advertisers?
You did the right thing. The genie IS out of the bottle, and the point of your blog post on this issue has already been made. Good reporting. This is why I always love to link to you in my blog posts.
Dan,
It’s integrity like yours that makes so many blogs superior to the alleged MSM journalists. Thanks.
“Don’t go telling half-truths, like Aguilar did in her report.”
Brian, stop it. I’m breaking out in tears.
This is clearly fair use. It’s no different than sending goons with bats to threaten you. Most individuals are terrified because they know corporations can break them financially just like the goons can break their kneecaps. Even if the corporation doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Even if it is fair use.
Texas does not have anti-SLAPP laws. So you are basically f——- if they do sue you in this case. I live in California. So, if I were to be sued by KDFW, I could file back and sue for lots and lots of money, probably with a lawyer on contingency.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/ Commenter Brian Epps has a great idea. Here is their website. I think I will start with the pop up ad for KIA. They list a website. We had a granny in Arlington, between Dallas and Fort Worth, who shot an intruder in her home. I don’t remember Agular getting in her face.
Sorry…not Fair Use…or, more specifically, not “transformative Fair Use.” The problem arises in the fact that you are advertising on your blog. Someone (possibly you) is, by definition of the law (and thanks to a half-assed defense and stipulation by Freerepublic.com in their case against the LA Times and Washington Post)operating a commercial venture. I doubt there is much revenue involved for the google ads and such…but it still falls under the definition of a “commercial” operation.
As a result, one of the burdens in proving “transformative Fair Use” is null and void. Fox News is correct.
Cheers
JR
PS: You handled the whole thing like an adult. Good on you!
Alice Kalthoff should be fired and you should be ashamed of yourself for knuckling under. Breitbart didn’t cave. You did. These news mutts are obviously whining when the news media become the news.
Fire Alice Kalthoff.
JR:
I doubt these issues are as cut and dry as you suggest. It’s a shame the station could get away with this sort of harassment, but I’d be very surprised if this still didn’t work out as fair use.
This is an excellent example of why good people despise journalists.
I would guess, with total confidence, that the reporter has never been the victim of a burglary.
Actually, you are correct that Fair Use is vague and convoluted. There are, essentially, four burdens of proof on transformative Fair Use.
1. Purpose and Character of the Use
2. Nature of the Copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole
4. The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Failure to pass the litmus test on any of these four burdens negates transformative Fair Use. I, merely, pointed out that by having Google Ads on your blog, you are a commercial venture…which disallows transformative Fair Use under #1 above (Purpose & Character). The District Court of California (Judge Morrow) actually ruled that solicitation of donations is considered “commercial” in name. Freerepublic.com eventually stipulated to that position.
Rather than pushing the case for a more definitive ruling, Freerepublic.com, actually, stipulated to Judge Morrow’s favorable decision towards the LA Times and Washington post (to avoid further costs). And, as I recall, one of the reasons Napster lost their suit was because the other party (record industry) was able to apply the Freerepublic.com decision in their favor.
But, you’re correct. It is a murky animal still. In this case, I think it is kind of straightforward.
“you should be ashamed”
Stop hyperventilating. The vid was gone, YouTube saw to that. I was open about all events and linked to Breitbart’s solid piece featuring the clip. That isn’t caving, it’s being an adult.
Here’s a guy on youtube fair-using the clip as well:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wutUDqJrPEk[/url]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4401331788993315767&q=%22rebecca+aguilar%22&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
try this one, the guy is funny, can’t place his accent.
They are hard-core anti-gun agenda people – people on a mission. They do not want to listen to anyone. We are to be force-fed their opinions, like it or not.
When criticized, they respond with threats of lawsuit.
When responded to, they shut down their e-mail address.
They do not apologize. Instead, they stick their middle finger in our faces, like the witch stuck it in the elderly couple’s face (metaphorically).
Such arrogance. If Kalthoff or Aguilar were ever violently assaulted, I wouldn’t shed a tear. And I’m sure they wouldn’t learn anything from it.
They are hard-core anti-gun agenda people – people on a mission. They do not want to listen to anyone. We are to be force-fed their opinions, like it or not.
When criticized, they respond with threats of lawsuit.
When responded to, they shut down their e-mail address.
They do not apologize. Instead, they stick their middle finger in our faces, like the witch stuck it in the elderly couple’s face (metaphorically).
Such arrogance. If Kalthoff or Aguilar were ever violently assaulted, I wouldn’t shed a tear. And I’m sure they wouldn’t learn anything from it.
This is really a new area of journalism – reporting on other reporters. I know there is a time limit you can show and not violate copyright, I forgot what it was, just like there is a limit to how much text you can quote. this is the kind of thing that lawyers will be able to bully other bloggers and non-mainstream reporters around until someone goes to court to defend themselves, saying the usage is ok because you’re not stealing the story, but reporting on the original reporting of the story.
Reporter reduces a senior citizen to tears for defending himself
Rebecca Aguilar ambushed 70-year-old James Walton as he walked to his car. She stood over him, berating him for shooting and killing someone who tried to break into his house,…
APOLOGIZING POORLY
You’d think a news organization would be smarter than that, the best way to give a story legs is to try to cover it up. I suspect You Tube will soon pull the video, but it will be out there, all over. This is the internet, you can’t destroy something o…
I think Fox4 would have a difficult time in court arguing it was concerned with copyright protection when at the same time they are trying to tamp down on usage of the video on the internet they have TAKEN THE CLIP OFF THEIR OWN SITE.
Which illustrates perfectly that this has nothing to do with protecting a copyright and everything to do with damage control for the station. Free speech, and hence fair use, should clearly win out in such a case.
“If you have questions you can contact myself or the myFOXdfw web staff at website@kdfwfox4.com.”
It should have read “…you can contact me or the….”
She’s a TV producer and doesn’t know, or is too lazy to care about using, correct english grammar.
I’m interested, if Fair Use does not cover use by a commercial venture, how in the hell does anything qualify as “Fair Use”?
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html
This site makes specific reference to 2 “commercial ventures”, music reviews, and news reporting. The Court Case is a commercial venture in my mind, but I suspect lawyers don’t like to talk about the fact they are getting paid for their job in court, as is everyone else there except the jury members and the defendant.